Mr. Sculpin, you post repeatedly about the manipulation of this stock, about coordinated take-downs and short attacks, how regulators should investigate the corruption and sustain the integrity of the market, make it safe for the little guy to invest.

I don't want to argue with you, as I agree the game favours the house. But that's the game. You play knowing it isn't always fair. And you play accordingly. If you look at St. Elias with objectivity and comparing it to its peers, what has happened here with St. Elias is a common case of "over-promise and under-deliver." On the Venture exchange, good results are rewarded and poor results are punished. That's the way it is. It happens to every company. St. Elias is a Venture Exchange mineral exploration stock. This is as risky as it gets.

When St. Elias was trading at 2.80 with a 300 million dollar market cap that at the time equaled the market cap for XRC with a resource estimate of 60 million gold equivalent ounces, why were there no posts about St. Elias being manipulated, about corruption and integrity? I mean St. Elias only had 4460 ounces, so why was it trading like it had 60 million ounces, if not for corruption and manipulation? St. Elias was trading at 0.20 before the Quantec survey was published. Is it really a stretch for St. Elias to be trading at 0.20 again after drill results to date (I know this is debatable) have shown the Quantec drill targets to be essentially barren? St. Elias's shareprice hit its high on the speculation that its drill results would show a world-class gold deposit. So given the poor drill results to date, should regulators be expected to maintain the share-price in the 2 dollar range?

The collapse of St. Elias's shareprice was very predictable. When 98% of drill results fail to meet market expectations, it was not hard to imagine that St. Elias's drill results wouldn't meet expectations either. Go back to my first few stockhouse posts on the SLI forum back in November and you'll see that I expressed exactly this.

Take the case of North Spring Resources. They reached a market cap of 1 billion dollars based on some good promotion and a 20% stake in an unproven gold property. Sounds rediculous, doesn't it? The shareprice was based on promotion, not on any tangable assets, so predictably the shareprice crashed to a few pennies. Should the authorities have maintained North Spring's billion dollar market cap too? The pendulum of the market usually swings too far in both directions, so when a company becomes undervalued, you buy, and when a company grows over-valued, you sell. And this is up to the individual investor to determine, not regulators.