Rookie,

The Jitney discussion, I found interesting. I hadn't heard that term before. Thanks for bringing that up.

As for the rest, here is Traps' comment in its entirety:

..once on the Big board, value funds need to see liquidity before they purchase shares. I guess we have to show a average vloume on the day

Given Traps' posting record concerning share price manipulation (don't get me wrong - I like Traps and enjoy his posts very much), I thought it was pretty clear he was suggesting that volume may have been created to manufacture higher average volumes to make the stock more attractive to the value funds on the 'Big Board'. Let me be clear: I don't think stated it outright there, or declared it to be true, but the idea most certainly was there, more as a musing than anything else. At least that's how I took it. And so I wrote this:

Why the assumption of shennanigans? Couldn't it be simply some re-balancing prior to the next leg up?

So to iterate, I merely suggested that there are possible alternative reasons for the crosses. Again, no accusation was made, and I most certainly didn't call anybody any names in those two short sentances. Seeing as how the post has gotten a couple of thumbs up, it would appear that others didn't find anything abusive or confrontational in there either.

As for getting along, I don't see how anything I've posted on this subject, or even this forum, could be construed as abrasive, confrontational, abusive, or even strongly contradictory. Perhaps you are reading something that doesn't exist between the rather few lines I've written on this thread (until now)?