ready to expolde , page-58

123 (Please stick with me, the post is long but has a reason)

In reality dunlop's post was cause for discussion, although possibly I would not have phrased it like t4p, but his queries, as inarticulate as they were, were as legitimate as the "theme" of dunlop's post.......having said that the semantic structure of dunlop's post is inherently deceptive and whilst some may have reacted on gut instinct to what they read, their gut was correct in my opinion.....

Dunlop's initial post was questioning, subtly affirmative, but overtly negative........such structure plays at the nervousness of individuals with lesser exposure to the market then others, and also potentially more exposure to CVI than they would normally have.......


"Hold at GREAT risk before monday IMO" - No sentiment, no stock held

It is similar to the language utilised by managerial staff whom to a degree "control" their staff with open questioning, leaving questions unanswered as it were.....the post presented as an inexperienced, basic researcher, merely overviewing larger well known facts, however it was the usage of the forcefully negative language that, in my opinion, played his hand......terms such as "highly unlikely", "massive", "great risk", "grave concerns" are emotive terms and contradict the perceived intent of their post......

Furthermore dunlop claimed not to hold, and despite his "highly unlikely", "massive", "great risk", "grave concerns" he allegedly bought in.......at that time....

Dunlop's second post was classic "innocent party" conversation, however he too again played his hand, amking admissions as to his trading prowess/experience:

"im certainly not "new"...not to trading and not to the CVI situation." - Hold, stock held

Again in his post he utilised emotive language "large position" to illustrate a point........however this point was proven by other posters to lack credit.......essentially they were looking at a duck, it sounded like a duck, it walked like a duck.......and in my opinion it was a duck..........Dunlop's signature block contains considerable information relevant to stocks, furthermore a look at is history shows membership for several months, however in excess of 50% of his posts have occurred in the past 13 days.......mostly appearing on bullish stocks with promising short term prospects.......

I feel too much focus has been placed on the lack of ethical behaviour shown by t4p when questioning Dunlop's "large position", and not enough in questioning why an individual who's personal id shows them as being an investor by occupation with a strategic/aggressive style would utilise the term "large position" without any realisation of what that would be interpreted as.....

The third post states:

"for the record i bought on CVIO on market and my post was not intended as a down ramp at all. Neither was it intended to drive the price down to fill my order.

i bought off screen , at market. paid full price"

Now given my own relative inexperience to the market, this sentence reads in two different fashions.......at first he states he bought "on market", then "off screen, at market".......for the uninitiated, such as myself, this seems deceptive........it may well be perfectly legitimate, but reads deceptively.........and I will qualify that with the comment that I am inexperienced at share trading and not what I am doing here........

I did not get an opportunity to read through t4p's moderated post, but from the moderation and responses the content is fairly obvious.......t4p appears to be questioning the "large position" Dunlop has apparently taken, despite the contradiction with known market activity today.......whilst I am not privy to the structure of t4p's post, again I have to again state that such questioning is relevant to the actual intent of Dunlop's postings......

Furthermore combine Dunlop's first post with the market activity today and you will notice that his first post was followed shortly after by a stay in momentum in what was most likely the most considered activity in CVI today....

My personal opinion is that not only was Dunlop deceptive in his post, but intentionally deceptive, my opinion is that Dunlop posted with the intention of heightening latent fears in over-exposed or less-experienced traders to the CVI position and that he did this with intent to maintain the trading status quo which had occurred today and yesterday.........

Whilst t4p could quite well have phrased his posts a little more loquaciously I personally believe that he had every right to do so........

Please bear in mind that this is entirely my opinion, and if I was as proficient in trading as what I am in my real job then I would be considerably more financial than I am right now.........