RE: RE: another bi-polar attack The Raymond James response covers most of the points by the shorters, but I was flummoxed by the argument about disparity between revenues reported to the SAIC, and the SEC, and Canadian regulators.But looking at the argument, the shorters seem to have looked @ some, but not all of SVM subsidiaries financial filing, and summed up the revenue, and determined it was inconsistent with what SVM claimed in it's North American filing.However, SVM has tax receipts for its revenue, which is consistent with what it has stated to to the NA regulators, so it seems that the error was in the methodology used by the shorters to determine SVM SAIC revenue.But I'm not a financial guy. Anyone else have thoughts.