>This is not what selling stock in an IPO is because stock is not non-existent. You are committing a No True Scotsman fallacy by trying to redefine the term to

>This is not what selling stock in an IPO is because stock is not non-existent. You are committing a No True Scotsman fallacy by trying to redefine the term to fit your needs. Wait a minute, you looked up a definition that used the specific term non-existent to bolster your argument, then accuse me of warping the definition? In fact, there have been a variety of "Ponzi Scheme's" over the years, some of which have used stock, bank deposits and land. >Case in point: You don't know the difference between company net income, returned earnings, and dividends. Huh? Okay. >Why? Did Zynga falsify an annual filing or their 10-k? No? Then the SEC doesn't give a shit. I was talking about your statement, which is that: "Whether or not they bought a lemon is the fault of the public investor." Completely false, mainly because the public information is provided by the company. By the way, the SEC has looked into Zynga. >I'm not going to go in circles with you on this any longer. Good. I'm sure it's been exhausting for you, looking up all these finance terms on Google. Between the arrogance and personal attacks, you're not adding much here.