"Are you saying that Pohl may not have been aware that S&L was dumping?"

Reread what I said.  The point is it doesn't matter if he knew or not, or expected S&L to be dumping or not - he probably had the expectation that the demand for the stock would run right over anything S&L or anyone else did, and that this was a reasonable expectation. He, like virtually all of us here, was wrong.  That doesn't make him a liar.

To me, calling someone a liar is equal to declaring fraud.  To prove fraud you must be able to prove intent to defraud (beyond a honest mistake or stupid mistake).  The bar for proving fraud is high (for good reason).  The bar for accusing someone of lying should be equally high. 

Do you honestly believe Pohl had "evil intent" when he used the word "perplexing"?  If you do, don't you think, if there were "evil intent", he would have used stronger words?

Just things to think about.  Especially for those you declare Pohl a liar.

JMHO,

SGE