"Hey, look at that. Another gap down in SLV. To paraphrase Jim Sinclair, 38 on its way to 20. So where are these trapped shorts? Shouldn't they be covering right about now?"

They will cover when they know all the reg guys like us and the funds have been liquidated, not before, but they will. That is why you did not see them covering at 50 bucks. Why do so when you have been told that 5 margin hikes will come to save you in a 2 week period.

OK. One version of the story has naked shorts trapped and desperate to cover, the other has the shorts with bottomless pockets that never have to meet a margin call. So which is it? Or is it one of those zen things where you maintain contradictory beliefs without putting either to the test?

Notice goldman putting out a negative call just before the margin calls then a week later going long. Notice the limit down on oil was put to 20% for a few days then when it looked to be going back up it was reinstated to 10%. 99 billion taken from the reg guy and then a positive call put back on by goldman. Ever think the 25 ex goldman sachs guys in gov gave them a little hint on what was to come. Ever wonder how goldman has 1 or 2 trading day losswes out of the last 3 yrs....hmmmm

I am afraid ebear you are 5 to 10 yrs behind in your info, you are now the minority especially when the fed itself and others have said they will manage prices and expectations.

I'm very comfortable being in the minority, thanks, and I've never argued that what you claim isn't happening. I'm just pointing out other possible explanations. It's not the case I'm arguing against per se, it's the methodology. On the internet, everyone's an expert. For as many learned gentlemen you can point to, I can find an equal number making the opposite case. The difference is in the degree of certainty. I see way too much of that from your camp - the certainty there is tantamount to ideology, when all you have is a chain of inferences where, when you reach a node where an inference has an equal chance of being A or B, the path that supports the ideology is always chosen. It reminds me of the Global Warming crowd. When evidence appeared to contradict their thesis, they didn't recant - they just changed the name to Climate Change. How convenient. If the earth warms, they're right, and if it cools, they're right.

This point to another interesting syndrome: The comfort that lies in certainty. Most people don't like uncertainty. They want answers, and the more certainty those answers are couched in, the more appreciative they are. It relieves the pressure of life in an uncertain world, if only momentarily. That's why 300 years after the Age of Reason people still read horoscopes and visit sooth sayers.

Only time will tell that you are being mislead as it seems all your indfo comes from mainstream or others with ties to the banking system.

Time is a relative thing. What seems natural and "right" from a human perspective is just a glimpse through a tiny window into a vast reality that for the most part is beyond our perception, let alone comprehension. We still have people arguing the earth was created 4000 years ago when solid evidence points to orders of magnitude greater. My information doesn't come from MSM, the banking system or the book-talking nest of market "mavens" clustered around this issue. My information comes from 30 years of studying epistemology and its relation to human psychology. I'm not interested in A or B, I'm interested in why people believe A or B.

When you understand what motivates people, it's easier to assign probabilities to outcomes governed by human action. This is a point I find endlessly amusing. The people who "engineer" our markets are well acquainted with the theory. They know the level most people operate on and provide them with convenient "clues" that support their bias, all in the name of pushing them in a particular direction. GATA is a good example of this. No one in that camp ever questions why it was so easy to "expose" the truth. They take all their clues at face value. In CIA parlance they are "useful idiots." People who work for the agency without ever knowing it.

Remember you are stating just your opinion rather than digging into it, that was evident when you announced Jeffery Christian as being learned. He is the guy that stated there was fractual banking to the tune of 100 to 1 silver held to silver owed. Since then the silver price skyrocketed. Also google Bart Chilton who works for the gov who stated massive silver manipulation in public.

Thanks for reminding me that it's just my opinion. I can apply that same rule to you, correct?

Oh and by the way it is not manipulated up it is allowed to rise naturally until enough of the public and funds get in and then the boat is tipped over, i went short at 48 because i know how the game works, that's why this info is important to inestors...join the fed and make money on their little games.

There you go again expressing opinion as fact. So much for the level playing field. Allow me to point out a small irony here. This board wasn't named after the battle of Thermoplyae, although the principles of Sparta do apply, at least in theory. No. The 300 comes from a bold assertion unsupported by any fact. It was a price target given on a stock by a self-proclaimed "expert" who when challenged resorted to boot stomping, chest thumping and personal invective. It was fun to watch (for a while) but unfortunately some people bought into his nonsense because, as pointed out, people like certainty - they want strong leaders who can tell them what to do.

There's always a job opening for that sort of character - evangelist, maven, sooth sayer, politician - call 'em what you want. They always find an audience because most people can't think for themselves.

All in time

Stopped clocks are right twice a day.

ebear