The writer is conceptually confused. They clearly don't...

The writer is conceptually confused. They clearly don't understand what the term "short selling" means and they provide no direct evidence of the secretive short selling they claim is occurring.

How could they provide evidence of the short selling - since it is, according to the writer, secretive?

How, then, do they know what has occurred?

hmmmmm.

In my opinion, it sounds like rumour mongering.

And, as a result of this article which I believe is conceptually confused and lacks hard evidence, they have caused a great many people a great deal of distress and a great deal of moral outrage about something which may or may not be occurring.

I think I'll send this on to Media Watch.

Cheers
Red