Note to Members from a former Admin

http://Deleted/t1010p75-note-to-members-of-investor-sentiment-forum

Shark to save ur time checking ur PMs or googling I'm posting the link you need. I will be banned now (but pls note I m only showing the source of GMNets posting)

Co-Admins should be shamed on themselves. Why you are keep justifying someone's copy and paste post.
You are taking this like slstock has done a criminal Offence.

Divide and rule comes to my mind.

GMNet wrote:Hope forum had changed from bad to good. I can see a remarkable improvemt in the forum traffic.
CONGATULATIONS!

Any where were you? Please dont forget to come to our annual meeting ok?

http://.…………. Promotion of other sites would lead to a Ban. - Warning

remove spaces

Definition of 'Insider Information'

A non-public fact regarding the plans or condition of a publicly traded company that could provide a financial advantage when used to buy or sell shares of the company's stock. Insider information is typically gained by someone who is working within or close to a listed company. If a person uses insider information to place trades, he or she can be found guilty of insider trading. Insider trading is illegal when the material information has not been made public and has been traded on. This is because the information gives those having this knowledge an unfair advantage.

Sstar wrote:Definition of 'Insider Information'

A non-public fact regarding the plans or condition of a publicly traded company that could provide a financial advantage when used to buy or sell shares of the company's stock. Insider information is typically gained by someone who is working within or close to a listed company. If a person uses insider information to place trades, he or she can be found guilty of insider trading. Insider trading is illegal when the material information has not been made public and has been traded on. This is because the information gives those having this knowledge an unfair advantage.

According to my little knowledge of law, what Slstock has attempted is to obtain inside information.

Sstar wrote:

Sstar wrote:Definition of 'Insider Information'

A non-public fact regarding the plans or condition of a publicly traded company that could provide a financial advantage when used to buy or sell shares of the company's stock. Insider information is typically gained by someone who is working within or close to a listed company. If a person uses insider information to place trades, he or she can be found guilty of insider trading. Insider trading is illegal when the material information has not been made public and has been traded on. This is because the information gives those having this knowledge an unfair advantage.

According to my little knowledge of law, what Slstock has attempted is to obtain inside information.

Dear Alchemist, Hapu Jonta999 and Kumar

Do you see why this is a serious offence now at least. Please read between the lines what the Para GMNet copy pasted.

Thats why i wanted the gentleman in question to provide a clarification so that we know what the intentions were.

SHARK

Sstar wrote:

Sstar wrote:Definition of 'Insider Information'

A non-public fact regarding the plans or condition of a publicly traded company that could provide a financial advantage when used to buy or sell shares of the company's stock. Insider information is typically gained by someone who is working within or close to a listed company. If a person uses insider information to place trades, he or she can be found guilty of insider trading. Insider trading is illegal when the material information has not been made public and has been traded on. This is because the information gives those having this knowledge an unfair advantage.

According to my little knowledge of law, what Slstock has attempted is to obtain inside information.

Inside information of promoters at SLEF?

What about shark's inability to stop promoters here...Food for thought...

All I am asking if it was a genuine error by the concern so that by clarifying it could have been a nip in the bud.staying put and adamant will not take as there is so much reputation at stake for him.if any statement was done i would have made the clarification on behalf of him if he is not willing to come to SLEF

jonta999 wrote:What about shark's inability to stop promoters here...Food for thought...

Do you want to see SLEF in coma stage? Are you joking mate?

Sstar might be the real Gmnet

SHARK wrote:All I am asking if it was a genuine error by the concern so that by clarifying it could have been a nip in the bud.staying put and adamant will not take as there is so much reputation at stake for him.if any statement was done i would have made the clarification on behalf of him if he is not willing to come to SLEF

Please go and read The Alchemist last post. Then you can understand who is adamant?

Kumar wrote:

jonta999 wrote:What about shark's inability to stop promoters here...Food for thought...

Do you want to see SLEF in coma stage? Are you joking mate?

All posts have been under moderation...... and SLEF encourages safe trading practices.

But allow all types of trading without biasedly targeted banning methods and systematic group bullying as its happening now which was encouraged in previously knowingly or unknowingly.

SHARK

The difference between now and then was it was vice versa before.    

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing !

SLStock has explained it for people with "little knowledge". See link below:
http://forum.Deleted.com/t1010p90-note-to-members-of-investor-sentiment-forum#6982

Sstar wrote:

According to my little knowledge of law, what Slstock has attempted is to obtain inside information.

SHARK wrote:
All posts have been under moderation...... and SLEF encourages safe trading practices.

But allow all types of trading without biasedly targeted banning methods and systematic group bullying as its happening now which was encouraged in previously knowingly or unknowingly.

SHARK

Expected and had seen here in the month of Feb and March when so called new management couldn't face the reality.

SHARK wrote:

Sstar wrote:

Sstar wrote:Definition of 'Insider Information'

A non-public fact regarding the plans or condition of a publicly traded company that could provide a financial advantage when used to buy or sell shares of the company's stock. Insider information is typically gained by someone who is working within or close to a listed company. If a person uses insider information to place trades, he or she can be found guilty of insider trading. Insider trading is illegal when the material information has not been made public and has been traded on. This is because the information gives those having this knowledge an unfair advantage.

According to my little knowledge of law, what Slstock has attempted is to obtain inside information.

Dear Alchemist, Hapu Jonta999 and Kumar

Do you see why this is a serious offence now at least. Please read between the lines what the Para GMNet copy pasted.

Thats why i wanted the gentleman in question to provide a clarification so that we know what the intentions were.

SHARK

@ 5STAR - At least you acknowledge you have a little knowledge of the law ! If i may say so, you have non my friend. who in their right mind would solicit / give inside information in a public forum where all members are anonymous ? Who would even believe this information ? If you read the entire article (not just the para quoted), it will be abundantly clear that this was not anything remotely to do with inside information. 

@ SHARK - For you to even imagine for one second that a person like SLS would resort to your low down tactics is unpardonable. 

It is laughable that both of you are co-admins of this forum.

The credibilty, integrity and quality of this joint is now showing. very very sad to see.

Alchemist - I dont trust anyone and do not take any company for granted. I go by what is written and requested the clarification through our Forum.since nothing was forthcoming i will leave it at that.

Now Sstar has made a request regarding the GMNet issue. Also previously i requested for the Full Post of what GMNet copy pasted.Now you are saying i need to read the full article or something of that sort.

Your friends bringing the discussion to such low level whilst at least you try to maintain some ethics.

when have you had a similar discussion in SLEF at this tense level yet no BAN nothing .........

I think SLEF has matured since then and allow freedom of speech and freedom to defend .....

I will now personally look at the post or thread or what ever to determine the seriousness.However please request former admin at least to put a clarification so that it would be much clearer for us.

regards
SHARK

SHARK wrote:
I will now personally look at the post or thread or what ever to determine the seriousness.However please request former admin at least to put a clarification so that it would be much clearer for us.

regards
SHARK

ah at last The Alchemist SHAKE the SHARK's mind to read the post.
  
Hope then you'll realise whether Slstock need to post a clarification.

SHARK wrote:
I will now personally look at the post or thread or what ever to determine the seriousness.However please request former admin at least to put a clarification so that it would be much clearer for us.

regards
SHARK

I cannot request former admin or anyone for anything. i am very sorry. 
i also feel that it is not neccessary for slstock to put clarrifications. 
since someone here cut and pasted & posted para of article of his, that someone should clarrify. 
i do not have any hidden agenda. i only want justice done. I feel a grave injustice has been done to slstock with a view to tarnish his image, in a mischievous and childish manner.  
If i see injustice done, i will call a spade a spade.

How the power of GMNet? She has clened up the mess at SIRA and recovered the missing 170 million single handedly and returned to SLEF. Soon as she appears activity levels go off the technical chart.
She will defa need to be the chief guest at the gathering of the SLEF.

The Thread remain closed