Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always known that this drop would happen. The entire trade was predicated on Friday being the day of maximum pressure.

They were indeed screwed by the shenanigans on Thursday which relieved the pressure and allowed the shorts to get out on a discount.

No, that's just a way of extending the conspiracy theory so that the rubes will continue to play the game. GME opened at $379 on Friday.

Sheesh, some people will never learn.

Because of what happened Thursday (and it got to $450 overnight). Sheesh, some people always lie.

Not lying. Just days ago people here and on WSB claimed against better voices, that the shorts were absolutely unable to unload their positions. You were probably one of them.

Well guess what, the know-it-alls on WSB didn't know the real short interest situation. Or if they did, they lied to the rubes about it.

No. People said there was an extremely large short position that needed to be covered and that could be squeezed. That was true and did happen.

It is these sorts of lies and exaggerations that are causing so much harm in our society.

That was only true until the middle of last week. Once the short squeeze was over, people said it wasn't and blamed Wall Street for the inevitable decline.

The stock price was poised to go much higher if the demand was not artificially cut off. That is irrefutable. The stock did not decline until they refused to accept retail trades. That means that Robinhood cost people a lot of money.

Irrefutable. You are such a rube. You still think the short interest was 120% a few days ago. They lied to you. They never told you that short interest number is lagged by weeks. ou didn't realize the shares of that company turned over ten times in the last week. Learn from your mistake.

Ladder attacks....

They did say that. No mistakes were made. S3 was even clear about the difference between total and effective short interest. JFC. You've come up with an argument and are trying to fit facts backwards to make that argument.

OK we're going to take a trip down memory lane. First the facts as you think you had them:

Was there, or was there not a 120% short interest on Monday of last week?

I'm not playing your dumbass game. But I am going to continue to point out that you have been mischaracterizing what people were saying and cherry picking/distorting information to fit into your pre-determined narrative.

They always said official data lagged. They always said that total short interest numbers were not the same as effective short interest. S3 which was widely quoted and tweeted always said it's numbers were estimates based on SEC filings. They always said that the squeeze was tied to options expiry. And what's more they were right.

I love how asking you for a specific number on a specific day is "a dumbass game".

And no, I am not "cherrypicking". Discussion about this 120% short interest was everywhere. In fact, even last friday it was here:

"01/28/2021 17:49 Subject: Robin Hood just ended trading on GameStop and AMC ....Shorts are still 120%+ of float for GME and around 80% for AMC. The calls are not covered yet. GME closed over $200 today and there's millions of call option contracts that expire tomorrow at sub-$50 strike price. It's gonna be nasty for the hedge funds."

Where did that number come from if it isn't correct? And why was it all over WSB and here?

It came from S3 research. https://www.shortsight.com/about/

https://www.shortsight.com/the-short-squeeze-is-in-full-force-whats-happening-now-with-gme/

Your cited article does not show a 120% short interest.

Oh stop with the smarmy bs. All that data is on the S3 website. Look for yourself. But here's their tweet https://mobile.twitter.com/ihors3/status/1355194252674953219?s=20

So you tell me, what was the short interest %?

53%

This is hilarious. Come on, say it. Just admit it, it's ok. There was no scam. Short interest was 113%, after the squeeze, but estimated to be only 53% when adjusted for synthetic positions. You assumed a lot of things based on a pre-determined narrative that clouded your judgment.

Hmmm.. I just quoted your source. If you understand how synthetic shares are created, you should be able to run that backwards to see how they are eliminated. But that's not what WSB told the rubes. They said there was no way the shorts could close out positions because they exceeded the entire float.

There are people on GME, EVEN TODAY, arguing that it's mathematically impossible for the shorts to close out their positions. This is a fallacy based on a misunderstanding of how shorting actually works.

WSB is calling the people at the tail end of this pump and dump "Bagholders". It's their own admission of what went on.

No you didnt. You tried to play games.

That very tweet and informarion was widely spread on WSB. That was their primary source. Some people were lazy and didn't read. It is easier to just stick to pre-determined narratives, isn't it.

Most posters falsely portrayed the short interest as either virtually or actually impossible for the holders to close out. These false statements were upvoted, not downvoted.

If as you say they knew the true situation to be different, they are guilty of running a pump and dump scheme.

It sure is funny what cognitive dissonance does to people. How, no matter what information someone is presented with, it gets turned into support for their original pre-comceived notion.

(They were basing that on an overestimate of how many shares they all owned. The type of thing that happens when the media and naysayers accuse them of controlling everything.)

Anonymous wrote:You don’t have to quote the thread every time, good god.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always known that this drop would happen. The entire trade was predicated on Friday being the day of maximum pressure.

They were indeed screwed by the shenanigans on Thursday which relieved the pressure and allowed the shorts to get out on a discount.

No, that's just a way of extending the conspiracy theory so that the rubes will continue to play the game. GME opened at $379 on Friday.

Sheesh, some people will never learn.

Because of what happened Thursday (and it got to $450 overnight). Sheesh, some people always lie.

Not lying. Just days ago people here and on WSB claimed against better voices, that the shorts were absolutely unable to unload their positions. You were probably one of them.

Well guess what, the know-it-alls on WSB didn't know the real short interest situation. Or if they did, they lied to the rubes about it.

No. People said there was an extremely large short position that needed to be covered and that could be squeezed. That was true and did happen.

It is these sorts of lies and exaggerations that are causing so much harm in our society.

That was only true until the middle of last week. Once the short squeeze was over, people said it wasn't and blamed Wall Street for the inevitable decline.

The stock price was poised to go much higher if the demand was not artificially cut off. That is irrefutable. The stock did not decline until they refused to accept retail trades. That means that Robinhood cost people a lot of money.

Irrefutable. You are such a rube. You still think the short interest was 120% a few days ago. They lied to you. They never told you that short interest number is lagged by weeks. ou didn't realize the shares of that company turned over ten times in the last week. Learn from your mistake.

Ladder attacks....

They did say that. No mistakes were made. S3 was even clear about the difference between total and effective short interest. JFC. You've come up with an argument and are trying to fit facts backwards to make that argument.

OK we're going to take a trip down memory lane. First the facts as you think you had them:

Was there, or was there not a 120% short interest on Monday of last week?

I'm not playing your dumbass game. But I am going to continue to point out that you have been mischaracterizing what people were saying and cherry picking/distorting information to fit into your pre-determined narrative.

They always said official data lagged. They always said that total short interest numbers were not the same as effective short interest. S3 which was widely quoted and tweeted always said it's numbers were estimates based on SEC filings. They always said that the squeeze was tied to options expiry. And what's more they were right.

I love how asking you for a specific number on a specific day is "a dumbass game".

And no, I am not "cherrypicking". Discussion about this 120% short interest was everywhere. In fact, even last friday it was here:

"01/28/2021 17:49 Subject: Robin Hood just ended trading on GameStop and AMC ....Shorts are still 120%+ of float for GME and around 80% for AMC. The calls are not covered yet. GME closed over $200 today and there's millions of call option contracts that expire tomorrow at sub-$50 strike price. It's gonna be nasty for the hedge funds."

Where did that number come from if it isn't correct? And why was it all over WSB and here?

It came from S3 research. https://www.shortsight.com/about/

https://www.shortsight.com/the-short-squeeze-is-in-full-force-whats-happening-now-with-gme/

Your cited article does not show a 120% short interest.

Oh stop with the smarmy bs. All that data is on the S3 website. Look for yourself. But here's their tweet https://mobile.twitter.com/ihors3/status/1355194252674953219?s=20

So you tell me, what was the short interest %?

53%

This is hilarious. Come on, say it. Just admit it, it's ok. There was no scam. Short interest was 113%, after the squeeze, but estimated to be only 53% when adjusted for synthetic positions. You assumed a lot of things based on a pre-determined narrative that clouded your judgment.

Hmmm.. I just quoted your source. If you understand how synthetic shares are created, you should be able to run that backwards to see how they are eliminated. But that's not what WSB told the rubes. They said there was no way the shorts could close out positions because they exceeded the entire float.

There are people on GME, EVEN TODAY, arguing that it's mathematically impossible for the shorts to close out their positions. This is a fallacy based on a misunderstanding of how shorting actually works.

WSB is calling the people at the tail end of this pump and dump "Bagholders". It's their own admission of what went on.

No you didnt. You tried to play games.

That very tweet and informarion was widely spread on WSB. That was their primary source. Some people were lazy and didn't read. It is easier to just stick to pre-determined narratives, isn't it.

Most posters falsely portrayed the short interest as either virtually or actually impossible for the holders to close out. These false statements were upvoted, not downvoted.

If as you say they knew the true situation to be different, they are guilty of running a pump and dump scheme.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always known that this drop would happen. The entire trade was predicated on Friday being the day of maximum pressure.

They were indeed screwed by the shenanigans on Thursday which relieved the pressure and allowed the shorts to get out on a discount.

No, that's just a way of extending the conspiracy theory so that the rubes will continue to play the game. GME opened at $379 on Friday.

Sheesh, some people will never learn.

Because of what happened Thursday (and it got to $450 overnight). Sheesh, some people always lie.

Not lying. Just days ago people here and on WSB claimed against better voices, that the shorts were absolutely unable to unload their positions. You were probably one of them.

Well guess what, the know-it-alls on WSB didn't know the real short interest situation. Or if they did, they lied to the rubes about it.

No. People said there was an extremely large short position that needed to be covered and that could be squeezed. That was true and did happen.

It is these sorts of lies and exaggerations that are causing so much harm in our society.

That was only true until the middle of last week. Once the short squeeze was over, people said it wasn't and blamed Wall Street for the inevitable decline.

The stock price was poised to go much higher if the demand was not artificially cut off. That is irrefutable. The stock did not decline until they refused to accept retail trades. That means that Robinhood cost people a lot of money.

Irrefutable. You are such a rube. You still think the short interest was 120% a few days ago. They lied to you. They never told you that short interest number is lagged by weeks. ou didn't realize the shares of that company turned over ten times in the last week. Learn from your mistake.

Ladder attacks....

They did say that. No mistakes were made. S3 was even clear about the difference between total and effective short interest. JFC. You've come up with an argument and are trying to fit facts backwards to make that argument.

OK we're going to take a trip down memory lane. First the facts as you think you had them:

Was there, or was there not a 120% short interest on Monday of last week?

I'm not playing your dumbass game. But I am going to continue to point out that you have been mischaracterizing what people were saying and cherry picking/distorting information to fit into your pre-determined narrative.

They always said official data lagged. They always said that total short interest numbers were not the same as effective short interest. S3 which was widely quoted and tweeted always said it's numbers were estimates based on SEC filings. They always said that the squeeze was tied to options expiry. And what's more they were right.

I love how asking you for a specific number on a specific day is "a dumbass game".

And no, I am not "cherrypicking". Discussion about this 120% short interest was everywhere. In fact, even last friday it was here:

"01/28/2021 17:49 Subject: Robin Hood just ended trading on GameStop and AMC ....Shorts are still 120%+ of float for GME and around 80% for AMC. The calls are not covered yet. GME closed over $200 today and there's millions of call option contracts that expire tomorrow at sub-$50 strike price. It's gonna be nasty for the hedge funds."

Where did that number come from if it isn't correct? And why was it all over WSB and here?

It came from S3 research. https://www.shortsight.com/about/

https://www.shortsight.com/the-short-squeeze-is-in-full-force-whats-happening-now-with-gme/

Your cited article does not show a 120% short interest.

Oh stop with the smarmy bs. All that data is on the S3 website. Look for yourself. But here's their tweet https://mobile.twitter.com/ihors3/status/1355194252674953219?s=20

So you tell me, what was the short interest %?

53%

This is hilarious. Come on, say it. Just admit it, it's ok. There was no scam. Short interest was 113%, after the squeeze, but estimated to be only 53% when adjusted for synthetic positions. You assumed a lot of things based on a pre-determined narrative that clouded your judgment.

Hmmm.. I just quoted your source. If you understand how synthetic shares are created, you should be able to run that backwards to see how they are eliminated. But that's not what WSB told the rubes. They said there was no way the shorts could close out positions because they exceeded the entire float.

There are people on GME, EVEN TODAY, arguing that it's mathematically impossible for the shorts to close out their positions. This is a fallacy based on a misunderstanding of how shorting actually works.

WSB is calling the people at the tail end of this pump and dump "Bagholders". It's their own admission of what went on.

No you didnt. You tried to play games.

That very tweet and informarion was widely spread on WSB. That was their primary source. Some people were lazy and didn't read. It is easier to just stick to pre-determined narratives, isn't it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always known that this drop would happen. The entire trade was predicated on Friday being the day of maximum pressure.

They were indeed screwed by the shenanigans on Thursday which relieved the pressure and allowed the shorts to get out on a discount.

No, that's just a way of extending the conspiracy theory so that the rubes will continue to play the game. GME opened at $379 on Friday.

Sheesh, some people will never learn.

Because of what happened Thursday (and it got to $450 overnight). Sheesh, some people always lie.

Not lying. Just days ago people here and on WSB claimed against better voices, that the shorts were absolutely unable to unload their positions. You were probably one of them.

Well guess what, the know-it-alls on WSB didn't know the real short interest situation. Or if they did, they lied to the rubes about it.

No. People said there was an extremely large short position that needed to be covered and that could be squeezed. That was true and did happen.

It is these sorts of lies and exaggerations that are causing so much harm in our society.

That was only true until the middle of last week. Once the short squeeze was over, people said it wasn't and blamed Wall Street for the inevitable decline.

The stock price was poised to go much higher if the demand was not artificially cut off. That is irrefutable. The stock did not decline until they refused to accept retail trades. That means that Robinhood cost people a lot of money.

Irrefutable. You are such a rube. You still think the short interest was 120% a few days ago. They lied to you. They never told you that short interest number is lagged by weeks. ou didn't realize the shares of that company turned over ten times in the last week. Learn from your mistake.

Ladder attacks....

They did say that. No mistakes were made. S3 was even clear about the difference between total and effective short interest. JFC. You've come up with an argument and are trying to fit facts backwards to make that argument.

OK we're going to take a trip down memory lane. First the facts as you think you had them:

Was there, or was there not a 120% short interest on Monday of last week?

I'm not playing your dumbass game. But I am going to continue to point out that you have been mischaracterizing what people were saying and cherry picking/distorting information to fit into your pre-determined narrative.

They always said official data lagged. They always said that total short interest numbers were not the same as effective short interest. S3 which was widely quoted and tweeted always said it's numbers were estimates based on SEC filings. They always said that the squeeze was tied to options expiry. And what's more they were right.

I love how asking you for a specific number on a specific day is "a dumbass game".

And no, I am not "cherrypicking". Discussion about this 120% short interest was everywhere. In fact, even last friday it was here:

"01/28/2021 17:49 Subject: Robin Hood just ended trading on GameStop and AMC ....Shorts are still 120%+ of float for GME and around 80% for AMC. The calls are not covered yet. GME closed over $200 today and there's millions of call option contracts that expire tomorrow at sub-$50 strike price. It's gonna be nasty for the hedge funds."

Where did that number come from if it isn't correct? And why was it all over WSB and here?

It came from S3 research. https://www.shortsight.com/about/

https://www.shortsight.com/the-short-squeeze-is-in-full-force-whats-happening-now-with-gme/

Your cited article does not show a 120% short interest.

Oh stop with the smarmy bs. All that data is on the S3 website. Look for yourself. But here's their tweet https://mobile.twitter.com/ihors3/status/1355194252674953219?s=20

So you tell me, what was the short interest %?

53%

This is hilarious. Come on, say it. Just admit it, it's ok. There was no scam. Short interest was 113%, after the squeeze, but estimated to be only 53% when adjusted for synthetic positions. You assumed a lot of things based on a pre-determined narrative that clouded your judgment.

Hmmm.. I just quoted your source. If you understand how synthetic shares are created, you should be able to run that backwards to see how they are eliminated. But that's not what WSB told the rubes. They said there was no way the shorts could close out positions because they exceeded the entire float.

There are people on GME, EVEN TODAY, arguing that it's mathematically impossible for the shorts to close out their positions. This is a fallacy based on a misunderstanding of how shorting actually works.

WSB is calling the people at the tail end of this pump and dump "Bagholders". It's their own admission of what went on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always known that this drop would happen. The entire trade was predicated on Friday being the day of maximum pressure.

They were indeed screwed by the shenanigans on Thursday which relieved the pressure and allowed the shorts to get out on a discount.

No, that's just a way of extending the conspiracy theory so that the rubes will continue to play the game. GME opened at $379 on Friday.

Sheesh, some people will never learn.

Because of what happened Thursday (and it got to $450 overnight). Sheesh, some people always lie.

Not lying. Just days ago people here and on WSB claimed against better voices, that the shorts were absolutely unable to unload their positions. You were probably one of them.

Well guess what, the know-it-alls on WSB didn't know the real short interest situation. Or if they did, they lied to the rubes about it.

No. People said there was an extremely large short position that needed to be covered and that could be squeezed. That was true and did happen.

It is these sorts of lies and exaggerations that are causing so much harm in our society.

That was only true until the middle of last week. Once the short squeeze was over, people said it wasn't and blamed Wall Street for the inevitable decline.

The stock price was poised to go much higher if the demand was not artificially cut off. That is irrefutable. The stock did not decline until they refused to accept retail trades. That means that Robinhood cost people a lot of money.

Irrefutable. You are such a rube. You still think the short interest was 120% a few days ago. They lied to you. They never told you that short interest number is lagged by weeks. ou didn't realize the shares of that company turned over ten times in the last week. Learn from your mistake.

Ladder attacks....

They did say that. No mistakes were made. S3 was even clear about the difference between total and effective short interest. JFC. You've come up with an argument and are trying to fit facts backwards to make that argument.

OK we're going to take a trip down memory lane. First the facts as you think you had them:

Was there, or was there not a 120% short interest on Monday of last week?

I'm not playing your dumbass game. But I am going to continue to point out that you have been mischaracterizing what people were saying and cherry picking/distorting information to fit into your pre-determined narrative.

They always said official data lagged. They always said that total short interest numbers were not the same as effective short interest. S3 which was widely quoted and tweeted always said it's numbers were estimates based on SEC filings. They always said that the squeeze was tied to options expiry. And what's more they were right.

I love how asking you for a specific number on a specific day is "a dumbass game".

And no, I am not "cherrypicking". Discussion about this 120% short interest was everywhere. In fact, even last friday it was here:

"01/28/2021 17:49 Subject: Robin Hood just ended trading on GameStop and AMC ....Shorts are still 120%+ of float for GME and around 80% for AMC. The calls are not covered yet. GME closed over $200 today and there's millions of call option contracts that expire tomorrow at sub-$50 strike price. It's gonna be nasty for the hedge funds."

Where did that number come from if it isn't correct? And why was it all over WSB and here?

It came from S3 research. https://www.shortsight.com/about/

https://www.shortsight.com/the-short-squeeze-is-in-full-force-whats-happening-now-with-gme/

Your cited article does not show a 120% short interest.

Oh stop with the smarmy bs. All that data is on the S3 website. Look for yourself. But here's their tweet https://mobile.twitter.com/ihors3/status/1355194252674953219?s=20

So you tell me, what was the short interest %?

53%

This is hilarious. Come on, say it. Just admit it, it's ok. There was no scam. Short interest was 113%, after the squeeze, but estimated to be only 53% when adjusted for synthetic positions. You assumed a lot of things based on a pre-determined narrative that clouded your judgment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always known that this drop would happen. The entire trade was predicated on Friday being the day of maximum pressure.

They were indeed screwed by the shenanigans on Thursday which relieved the pressure and allowed the shorts to get out on a discount.

No, that's just a way of extending the conspiracy theory so that the rubes will continue to play the game. GME opened at $379 on Friday.

Sheesh, some people will never learn.

Because of what happened Thursday (and it got to $450 overnight). Sheesh, some people always lie.

Not lying. Just days ago people here and on WSB claimed against better voices, that the shorts were absolutely unable to unload their positions. You were probably one of them.

Well guess what, the know-it-alls on WSB didn't know the real short interest situation. Or if they did, they lied to the rubes about it.

No. People said there was an extremely large short position that needed to be covered and that could be squeezed. That was true and did happen.

It is these sorts of lies and exaggerations that are causing so much harm in our society.

That was only true until the middle of last week. Once the short squeeze was over, people said it wasn't and blamed Wall Street for the inevitable decline.

The stock price was poised to go much higher if the demand was not artificially cut off. That is irrefutable. The stock did not decline until they refused to accept retail trades. That means that Robinhood cost people a lot of money.

Irrefutable. You are such a rube. You still think the short interest was 120% a few days ago. They lied to you. They never told you that short interest number is lagged by weeks. ou didn't realize the shares of that company turned over ten times in the last week. Learn from your mistake.

Ladder attacks....

They did say that. No mistakes were made. S3 was even clear about the difference between total and effective short interest. JFC. You've come up with an argument and are trying to fit facts backwards to make that argument.

OK we're going to take a trip down memory lane. First the facts as you think you had them:

Was there, or was there not a 120% short interest on Monday of last week?

I'm not playing your dumbass game. But I am going to continue to point out that you have been mischaracterizing what people were saying and cherry picking/distorting information to fit into your pre-determined narrative.

They always said official data lagged. They always said that total short interest numbers were not the same as effective short interest. S3 which was widely quoted and tweeted always said it's numbers were estimates based on SEC filings. They always said that the squeeze was tied to options expiry. And what's more they were right.

I love how asking you for a specific number on a specific day is "a dumbass game".

And no, I am not "cherrypicking". Discussion about this 120% short interest was everywhere. In fact, even last friday it was here:

"01/28/2021 17:49 Subject: Robin Hood just ended trading on GameStop and AMC ....Shorts are still 120%+ of float for GME and around 80% for AMC. The calls are not covered yet. GME closed over $200 today and there's millions of call option contracts that expire tomorrow at sub-$50 strike price. It's gonna be nasty for the hedge funds."

Where did that number come from if it isn't correct? And why was it all over WSB and here?

It came from S3 research. https://www.shortsight.com/about/

https://www.shortsight.com/the-short-squeeze-is-in-full-force-whats-happening-now-with-gme/

Your cited article does not show a 120% short interest.

Oh stop with the smarmy bs. All that data is on the S3 website. Look for yourself. But here's their tweet https://mobile.twitter.com/ihors3/status/1355194252674953219?s=20

So you tell me, what was the short interest %?

53%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always known that this drop would happen. The entire trade was predicated on Friday being the day of maximum pressure.

They were indeed screwed by the shenanigans on Thursday which relieved the pressure and allowed the shorts to get out on a discount.

No, that's just a way of extending the conspiracy theory so that the rubes will continue to play the game. GME opened at $379 on Friday.

Sheesh, some people will never learn.

Because of what happened Thursday (and it got to $450 overnight). Sheesh, some people always lie.

Not lying. Just days ago people here and on WSB claimed against better voices, that the shorts were absolutely unable to unload their positions. You were probably one of them.

Well guess what, the know-it-alls on WSB didn't know the real short interest situation. Or if they did, they lied to the rubes about it.

No. People said there was an extremely large short position that needed to be covered and that could be squeezed. That was true and did happen.

It is these sorts of lies and exaggerations that are causing so much harm in our society.

That was only true until the middle of last week. Once the short squeeze was over, people said it wasn't and blamed Wall Street for the inevitable decline.

The stock price was poised to go much higher if the demand was not artificially cut off. That is irrefutable. The stock did not decline until they refused to accept retail trades. That means that Robinhood cost people a lot of money.

Irrefutable. You are such a rube. You still think the short interest was 120% a few days ago. They lied to you. They never told you that short interest number is lagged by weeks. ou didn't realize the shares of that company turned over ten times in the last week. Learn from your mistake.

Ladder attacks....

They did say that. No mistakes were made. S3 was even clear about the difference between total and effective short interest. JFC. You've come up with an argument and are trying to fit facts backwards to make that argument.

OK we're going to take a trip down memory lane. First the facts as you think you had them:

Was there, or was there not a 120% short interest on Monday of last week?

I'm not playing your dumbass game. But I am going to continue to point out that you have been mischaracterizing what people were saying and cherry picking/distorting information to fit into your pre-determined narrative.

They always said official data lagged. They always said that total short interest numbers were not the same as effective short interest. S3 which was widely quoted and tweeted always said it's numbers were estimates based on SEC filings. They always said that the squeeze was tied to options expiry. And what's more they were right.

I love how asking you for a specific number on a specific day is "a dumbass game".

And no, I am not "cherrypicking". Discussion about this 120% short interest was everywhere. In fact, even last friday it was here:

"01/28/2021 17:49 Subject: Robin Hood just ended trading on GameStop and AMC ....Shorts are still 120%+ of float for GME and around 80% for AMC. The calls are not covered yet. GME closed over $200 today and there's millions of call option contracts that expire tomorrow at sub-$50 strike price. It's gonna be nasty for the hedge funds."

Where did that number come from if it isn't correct? And why was it all over WSB and here?

It came from S3 research. https://www.shortsight.com/about/

https://www.shortsight.com/the-short-squeeze-is-in-full-force-whats-happening-now-with-gme/

Your cited article does not show a 120% short interest.

Oh stop with the smarmy bs. All that data is on the S3 website. Look for yourself. But here's their tweet https://mobile.twitter.com/ihors3/status/1355194252674953219?s=20

So you tell me, what was the short interest %?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always known that this drop would happen. The entire trade was predicated on Friday being the day of maximum pressure.

They were indeed screwed by the shenanigans on Thursday which relieved the pressure and allowed the shorts to get out on a discount.

No, that's just a way of extending the conspiracy theory so that the rubes will continue to play the game. GME opened at $379 on Friday.

Sheesh, some people will never learn.

Because of what happened Thursday (and it got to $450 overnight). Sheesh, some people always lie.

Not lying. Just days ago people here and on WSB claimed against better voices, that the shorts were absolutely unable to unload their positions. You were probably one of them.

Well guess what, the know-it-alls on WSB didn't know the real short interest situation. Or if they did, they lied to the rubes about it.

No. People said there was an extremely large short position that needed to be covered and that could be squeezed. That was true and did happen.

It is these sorts of lies and exaggerations that are causing so much harm in our society.

That was only true until the middle of last week. Once the short squeeze was over, people said it wasn't and blamed Wall Street for the inevitable decline.

The stock price was poised to go much higher if the demand was not artificially cut off. That is irrefutable. The stock did not decline until they refused to accept retail trades. That means that Robinhood cost people a lot of money.

Irrefutable. You are such a rube. You still think the short interest was 120% a few days ago. They lied to you. They never told you that short interest number is lagged by weeks. ou didn't realize the shares of that company turned over ten times in the last week. Learn from your mistake.

Ladder attacks....

They did say that. No mistakes were made. S3 was even clear about the difference between total and effective short interest. JFC. You've come up with an argument and are trying to fit facts backwards to make that argument.

OK we're going to take a trip down memory lane. First the facts as you think you had them:

Was there, or was there not a 120% short interest on Monday of last week?

I'm not playing your dumbass game. But I am going to continue to point out that you have been mischaracterizing what people were saying and cherry picking/distorting information to fit into your pre-determined narrative.

They always said official data lagged. They always said that total short interest numbers were not the same as effective short interest. S3 which was widely quoted and tweeted always said it's numbers were estimates based on SEC filings. They always said that the squeeze was tied to options expiry. And what's more they were right.

I love how asking you for a specific number on a specific day is "a dumbass game".

And no, I am not "cherrypicking". Discussion about this 120% short interest was everywhere. In fact, even last friday it was here:

"01/28/2021 17:49 Subject: Robin Hood just ended trading on GameStop and AMC ....Shorts are still 120%+ of float for GME and around 80% for AMC. The calls are not covered yet. GME closed over $200 today and there's millions of call option contracts that expire tomorrow at sub-$50 strike price. It's gonna be nasty for the hedge funds."

Where did that number come from if it isn't correct? And why was it all over WSB and here?

It came from S3 research. https://www.shortsight.com/about/

https://www.shortsight.com/the-short-squeeze-is-in-full-force-whats-happening-now-with-gme/

Your cited article does not show a 120% short interest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always known that this drop would happen. The entire trade was predicated on Friday being the day of maximum pressure.

They were indeed screwed by the shenanigans on Thursday which relieved the pressure and allowed the shorts to get out on a discount.

No, that's just a way of extending the conspiracy theory so that the rubes will continue to play the game. GME opened at $379 on Friday.

Sheesh, some people will never learn.

Because of what happened Thursday (and it got to $450 overnight). Sheesh, some people always lie.

Not lying. Just days ago people here and on WSB claimed against better voices, that the shorts were absolutely unable to unload their positions. You were probably one of them.

Well guess what, the know-it-alls on WSB didn't know the real short interest situation. Or if they did, they lied to the rubes about it.

No. People said there was an extremely large short position that needed to be covered and that could be squeezed. That was true and did happen.

It is these sorts of lies and exaggerations that are causing so much harm in our society.

That was only true until the middle of last week. Once the short squeeze was over, people said it wasn't and blamed Wall Street for the inevitable decline.

The stock price was poised to go much higher if the demand was not artificially cut off. That is irrefutable. The stock did not decline until they refused to accept retail trades. That means that Robinhood cost people a lot of money.

Irrefutable. You are such a rube. You still think the short interest was 120% a few days ago. They lied to you. They never told you that short interest number is lagged by weeks. ou didn't realize the shares of that company turned over ten times in the last week. Learn from your mistake.

Ladder attacks....

They did say that. No mistakes were made. S3 was even clear about the difference between total and effective short interest. JFC. You've come up with an argument and are trying to fit facts backwards to make that argument.

OK we're going to take a trip down memory lane. First the facts as you think you had them:

Was there, or was there not a 120% short interest on Monday of last week?

I'm not playing your dumbass game. But I am going to continue to point out that you have been mischaracterizing what people were saying and cherry picking/distorting information to fit into your pre-determined narrative.

They always said official data lagged. They always said that total short interest numbers were not the same as effective short interest. S3 which was widely quoted and tweeted always said it's numbers were estimates based on SEC filings. They always said that the squeeze was tied to options expiry. And what's more they were right.

I love how asking you for a specific number on a specific day is "a dumbass game".

And no, I am not "cherrypicking". Discussion about this 120% short interest was everywhere. In fact, even last friday it was here:

"01/28/2021 17:49 Subject: Robin Hood just ended trading on GameStop and AMC ....Shorts are still 120%+ of float for GME and around 80% for AMC. The calls are not covered yet. GME closed over $200 today and there's millions of call option contracts that expire tomorrow at sub-$50 strike price. It's gonna be nasty for the hedge funds."

Where did that number come from if it isn't correct? And why was it all over WSB and here?

It came from S3 research. https://www.shortsight.com/about/

https://www.shortsight.com/the-short-squeeze-is-in-full-force-whats-happening-now-with-gme/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always known that this drop would happen. The entire trade was predicated on Friday being the day of maximum pressure.

They were indeed screwed by the shenanigans on Thursday which relieved the pressure and allowed the shorts to get out on a discount.

No, that's just a way of extending the conspiracy theory so that the rubes will continue to play the game. GME opened at $379 on Friday.

Sheesh, some people will never learn.

Because of what happened Thursday (and it got to $450 overnight). Sheesh, some people always lie.

Not lying. Just days ago people here and on WSB claimed against better voices, that the shorts were absolutely unable to unload their positions. You were probably one of them.

Well guess what, the know-it-alls on WSB didn't know the real short interest situation. Or if they did, they lied to the rubes about it.

No. People said there was an extremely large short position that needed to be covered and that could be squeezed. That was true and did happen.

It is these sorts of lies and exaggerations that are causing so much harm in our society.

That was only true until the middle of last week. Once the short squeeze was over, people said it wasn't and blamed Wall Street for the inevitable decline.

The stock price was poised to go much higher if the demand was not artificially cut off. That is irrefutable. The stock did not decline until they refused to accept retail trades. That means that Robinhood cost people a lot of money.

Irrefutable. You are such a rube. You still think the short interest was 120% a few days ago. They lied to you. They never told you that short interest number is lagged by weeks. ou didn't realize the shares of that company turned over ten times in the last week. Learn from your mistake.

Ladder attacks....

They did say that. No mistakes were made. S3 was even clear about the difference between total and effective short interest. JFC. You've come up with an argument and are trying to fit facts backwards to make that argument.

OK we're going to take a trip down memory lane. First the facts as you think you had them:

Was there, or was there not a 120% short interest on Monday of last week?

I'm not playing your dumbass game. But I am going to continue to point out that you have been mischaracterizing what people were saying and cherry picking/distorting information to fit into your pre-determined narrative.

They always said official data lagged. They always said that total short interest numbers were not the same as effective short interest. S3 which was widely quoted and tweeted always said it's numbers were estimates based on SEC filings. They always said that the squeeze was tied to options expiry. And what's more they were right.

I love how asking you for a specific number on a specific day is "a dumbass game".

And no, I am not "cherrypicking". Discussion about this 120% short interest was everywhere. In fact, even last friday it was here:

"01/28/2021 17:49 Subject: Robin Hood just ended trading on GameStop and AMC ....Shorts are still 120%+ of float for GME and around 80% for AMC. The calls are not covered yet. GME closed over $200 today and there's millions of call option contracts that expire tomorrow at sub-$50 strike price. It's gonna be nasty for the hedge funds."

Where did that number come from if it isn't correct? And why was it all over WSB and here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always known that this drop would happen. The entire trade was predicated on Friday being the day of maximum pressure.

They were indeed screwed by the shenanigans on Thursday which relieved the pressure and allowed the shorts to get out on a discount.

No, that's just a way of extending the conspiracy theory so that the rubes will continue to play the game. GME opened at $379 on Friday.

Sheesh, some people will never learn.

Because of what happened Thursday (and it got to $450 overnight). Sheesh, some people always lie.

Not lying. Just days ago people here and on WSB claimed against better voices, that the shorts were absolutely unable to unload their positions. You were probably one of them.

Well guess what, the know-it-alls on WSB didn't know the real short interest situation. Or if they did, they lied to the rubes about it.

No. People said there was an extremely large short position that needed to be covered and that could be squeezed. That was true and did happen.

It is these sorts of lies and exaggerations that are causing so much harm in our society.

That was only true until the middle of last week. Once the short squeeze was over, people said it wasn't and blamed Wall Street for the inevitable decline.

The stock price was poised to go much higher if the demand was not artificially cut off. That is irrefutable. The stock did not decline until they refused to accept retail trades. That means that Robinhood cost people a lot of money.

Irrefutable. You are such a rube. You still think the short interest was 120% a few days ago. They lied to you. They never told you that short interest number is lagged by weeks. ou didn't realize the shares of that company turned over ten times in the last week. Learn from your mistake.

Ladder attacks....

They did say that. No mistakes were made. S3 was even clear about the difference between total and effective short interest. JFC. You've come up with an argument and are trying to fit facts backwards to make that argument.

OK we're going to take a trip down memory lane. First the facts as you think you had them:

Was there, or was there not a 120% short interest on Monday of last week?

I'm not playing your dumbass game. But I am going to continue to point out that you have been mischaracterizing what people were saying and cherry picking/distorting information to fit into your pre-determined narrative.

They always said official data lagged. They always said that total short interest numbers were not the same as effective short interest. S3 which was widely quoted and tweeted always said it's numbers were estimates based on SEC filings. They always said that the squeeze was tied to options expiry. And what's more they were right.