% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

SIX FLAGS INC Message Board

  • bounceback_99 bounceback_99 Aug 12, 2003 7:36 PM Flag

    I bought 15,000 today at $4.40

    At some point PKS will hit $10, and all you cry babies will once again be saying, man I should bought it at 4 bucks when I had the chance.

    After all the crap his company had to deal with, only loosing one penny per share is a pretty good job.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • """ At some point PKS will hit $10, and all you cry babies will once again be saying, man I should bought it at 4 bucks when I had the chance."""

      First of all, you ought never buy a stock which is in a l-o-o-o-n-g downtrend, no matter how "cheap". That is why it is so cheap in the first place.

      Second, if you want to make money off the substantial swings through each swing up to the annual lower yearly high and subsequent drop to the low, you ought to use call and put options. At the right time I could buy enough calls for far less money to "match" the equivalent numbers of shares you purchased outright and before next spring cash in for a hell of lot more than you'll ever hope to get from holding till then.

      After that I will buy puts and make money on the steep slide back down while you are sitting idle losing money because you didn't sell at the spring high all the while swallowing next year's excuses by the company and railing again at us shorters who were smart enough to cash in on your losses.

      Piss and moan all you like but we traders ARE superior. Your kind is an amusing little lot though.

    • .....You violated the TOS by giving out personal information about another poster!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • "We're all sitting here and everyone is giggling away."

      Who's we? gxx5go and park99sunshine and lucky and the rest of the MPD pumping crowd?

      "Mystery you sure take all this so seriously."

      When I enter into an agreement, I keep it to the limits of my capabilities. You choose to violate the Yahoo TOS to which you agreed by seeking to invade the privacy of other participants, as with your lie detector requests. If a person's word is worthless, the person usually is too.

      I showed that you lied. I showed that Lucky lied. I wouldn't be surprised if you're lying again.

      "The people who bet that mystery would speak for Jena had their bets paid off."

      I don't speak for anyone else. I didn;t speak for anyone else. Ergo, nobody would have paid off. Pretend to be manipulative if you wish. Not much to take pride in, the weak ability to pretend to be manipulative. Why humiliate yourself that way?

      "That includes me."

      Who were you allegedly betting against?

      "Mystery, you helped me make money. Thanks."

      All I did was point out your poor and irrational logic and how it exposed your dishonesty. There is nothing in my post that speaks for anyone else. Therefor, you are lying again.

      Since you didn't know the facts before you asserted them to be facts, you admitted to lying. Me pointing out the obvious mistake in logic is not speaking for another person. It exposes you as a liar.

      You didn't get paid off for me speaking for Jena. So you lied again. Thanks for yet another confession of your dishonesty. This is establishing a pattern. You really should review Title 18 Chapters 47 and 96 of the U.S. Code if you plan to keep lying.

      "And some of my friends made copies of the gxxgo and jena saga."

      Good. Then it doesn't need to be rehashed. You should have Lucky read it so that he doesn't keep spewing the same boring, disproven nonsense all over again.

      "Those two should write soap operas."

      Why? Nobody cares. Nobody's interested.

      "This Six Flags board is more entertaining than TV."

      Not much of a challenge, really.

    • I'm giggling away at your stupidity.

    • "So I'm fearless."

      Congrats, you join the billions of other fearless internet citizens.

      "The lie detector test can solve what I described previosly."

      You're really stupid.

      1) Who cares?
      2) Lie detectors are easily tricked, if anyone cared enough to even do it.
      3) See #1.

    • You're stupid, l2read.

    • We're all sitting here and everyone is giggling away. Mystery you sure take all this so seriously. The people who bet that mystery would speak for Jena had their bets paid off. That includes me. Mystery, you helped me make money. Thanks. And some of my friends made copies of the gxxgo and jena saga. Those two should write soap operas. This Six Flags board is more entertaining than TV. Through all of your messages you do make some good points about Six Flags. Like they sell a bunch of parks and don't make a dent in their debt. And why on earth buy Dick Clark's company? I thought the stock looked cheap at $1.05. Maybe it was but I look at where it was in 1999 and 2002 before the big drop and say this is a risky stock. Not high quality. Huge debt. Bozo management. I'm surprized the fence climber who got killed wasn't a holder of this dog of a stock, depressed, and giving up on life.

    • Yawn.

      You are incorrect.

      Also, you did not provide the specific provision of the Yahoo TOS that you erroneously think I violated as I requested. Basically, it appears that you made up a provision that you think is there rather than do any due diligence. You really should be aware of the terms of the agreements you enter.

      You did not evaluate your assumptions and consider their validity.

      You arrived at an erroneous conclusion which you subsequently stated as fact without asking any of the obvious or appropriate questions. Stating things as facts that you do not know for certain is dishonest and clearly won't do anything to give you any credibility. Only being truthful can do that.

      At this point, I really have to agree with F.R's assessment of your intellect or lack thereof.

      Here's a clue: If you said my name was Russ and I was from Wilmington, NC, you wouldn't be violating the Yahoo TOS. I'm guessing you aren't bright enough to figure it out but there's the clue anyway.

      Do you have any timely and meaningful information about Six Flags that would be of interest to investors that you can share?

      Or shall we simply anticipate more posts from you in the style and fashion of the banned gxx5go/park99sunshine et al?

    • Yawn.

      "that's why several different posters claim mysteriously_here is jenarogers?"

      Do you mean the multiple IDs of one poster, of which you may be yet another?

      Stupid and irrelevant. Nobody cares about the lies you want to spew. They won't alter the truth. Why repeat them?

      "Is it because...?"

      It is because some idiot liars who were caught in the act thought they could restore their credibility with dishonest nonsense that nobody cares about. You are following the same stupid path as the banned liars, abusers, and harassers. Why?

      "sounds like your pattern observation is a self confession?"

      Sounds stupid, irrelevant, and dishonest. The issue has been covered. Yet you insist on rehashing lies about things nobody cares about. Why?

      "I'm only displaying what the patterns show"

      You aren't displaying anything. Your posts, like gxx5go and park99sunshine posts babble things but never establish a foundation for them. Why?

      The pattern shows that you are spewing the same irrelevant nonsense that was endlessly spewed by banned participants who were abusers, harassers, and liars. That's what the pattern shows. Why?

      "I am not stating that you are the same person"

      You are making unfounded implications in an effort to continue the same nonsensical attacks on other participants that were the staple of the banned personas. Why continue babbling about other posters? Especially when nobody cares what you have to say about them? You are a known and confessed liar.

      "when children go missing parent's normally take a lie detector test to show they have nothing to hide"

      Stupid and irrelevant.

      "your pattern mysterious is writing long posts and usually blaming those you disagree by attacking their statements and conclusions which appears as a veiled way of attacking those posters personally"

      I rationally deconstruct flawed arguments and correct erroneous data. If someone is personally attached to beliefs that are not founded in reason and data and consider it a personal attack to be questioned and to have their beliefs tested against the data, that is not a personal attack. Honest people with brains understand that. Liars, deceivers, and stupid people do not. Which are you?

      "rational individuals would conclude you are both the same person or possibly that you are obsessed with jena"

      What do you know about rational individuals? Your reasoning skills have been shown in several instances to be very poor.

      The truth is you keep bringing up Jena and keep talking about me. When was her last post here? Months ago? Before your ID was created. You appear to be the one obsessed with talking about other participants. Why is that? Don't you have anything meaningful to contribute about Six Flags?

      "in the absence of a lie detector test rational individuals would conclude the former is true"

      Stupid, irrelevant, dishonest, and wrong again.

      "again I am only showing what the patterns show"

      Yes. You are showing that you have the same obsession with Jena and me that the banned posters had. An irrational pattern from an irrational individual. That is what the pattern you are illustrating shows.

      Nobody cares. Nobody's interested. You have nothing of value to offer about Six Flags. You just want to assassinate the character of other participants. Too bad you aren't rational enough to see you are committing character suicide. Just like your banned friends.

      "I am not accusing you of being jena"

      Stupid and irrelevant.

      "And why would you write that so and so lives in a particular state"

      I live in Wilmington, NC. So?

      "that is a clear violation of the yahoo TOS"

      Really? Which provision?

    • "Let me explain this clearly for you."

      I would appreciate that.

      "I found the tannersarah message in this thread. It is the oldest that talks about the seasonal pattern. So my logical conclusion was that she discovered the pattern."

      Reasonable, but it discounts the possibility that several individuals could discover a pattern independently. In the history of science and mathematics, their are multiple instances. When a new comet is discovered, there is a rush to notify the appropriate authorities in order to have naming rights.

      "I told this to lucky."

      Does this mean you did not tell Lucky that jenarogers "copied" from tannersarah? Was that something he came up with on his own? In other words, did he lie when he said a friend told him it was copied by jenarogers?

      "I am not responsible for what lucky or anyone else writes."

      Fair enough as long as you aren't Lucky or anyone else.

      "Personaly I often like reading about details you explain about Six Flags."


      "People had called me liar to my face when I was telling the truth. If that happened to you you might get angry too."

      Different people have different hot buttons. If that's yours, fine. One of mine is that I don't like people trying to bully and intimidate others, and especially not if they lie to do it.

      "So I'm fearless. It is a positive attribute. Firemen are also fearless."

      Firemen are trained to know what they're doing in order to minimize risk to themselves in dangerous, perilous, and hazardous circumstances.

      "Now lucky said "a friend" and you replied by saying lucky's friends were liars. Do you know all of lucky's friends?"

      The context of what I said would not require me to know all of Lucky's friends.

      "I also find the conspiacy theory that you are jenarogers amusing."

      I find it boring, stupid and tiresome.

      "And these conspiracy theories show that there is a lot of mistrust on this board."

      These conspiracy theories are fictions made up by humiliated liars who wish to discredit other participants and can't do it with the content of what those other posters have said so they make things up in the false and misguided belief that who the person is matters more than what they actually said. Nobody else cares so it doesn't work.

      "The lie detector test can solve what I described previosly."

      No. It is entirely irrelevant to what was described previously. Even if what was said turns out to be true, it wasn't known to be true when it was said. The proof has to exist before the assertion is made or the assertion is dishonest. The need for a lie detector admits as much.

      "So in it's absence and after reading what you have said my conclusion now is I don't know who originated the seasonal trend strategy."

      It could be 50 different people independently originated it. After all, the historical data is readily available and easily accessible. There are books and chapters of books on the topic of investing in stocks whose share prices oscillate and how to invest in them.

      "If tannersarah and jenarogers are both honest people I'm sure that neither would object to taking a lie detector test."

      I don't believe their honesty is in question. Neither of them claimed that they originated the strategy or that the other copied them. They have no dispute to resolve.

      I do know that jenarogers discussed on other forums (Compuserve or Prodigy) trading oscillating stocks as far back as 1998. One stock was MOTO as I recall.

      You have already acknowledged that you do not know where the strategy originated. That is sufficient to correct the original error.

      Unfortunately and unwisely, your friend Lucky, like gxx5go/park99sunshine before him decided to go on the attack and make a fool of himself.

    • View More Messages