Pluvia vs. Westergaard Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Pluvia vs. Westergaard

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Rick Strange who wrote (684)	8/30/1997 4:54:00 PM
From: Pluvia	of 1267

<<<history is revealing especially when one attempts to rewrite that history to present himself in the best light unblemished by warts.>>> Rick, the issue of me posting in two different nom de plumes has already been addressed: techstocks.com when I said: <<< That pretty much wraps up the argument as far as if I was trying to drive down the stock of PLSIA for financial gain, competitive advantage or to advance the interests of a competitor. OK, so what else is there? Hmmm I posted by mistake in my other screenname as I admit and explain here post but as all of the people I trade with regularly can tell you, there was nothing remotely sinister about this. Just a mistake when I logged onto AOL. The last log-on name always appears as the default when you get on. I absent mindedly forgot to change my screename from the default as noted in this post -- techstocks.com >>> I resent your implication that I have tried to "re-write history to present myself in the best light unblemished by warts." As I have already said, my regular use of the Tight Fiiv nom de plume when trading on AOL, is to avoid interruptions from others seeking investment tips and advice. If you had the ability to post a trading portfolio and make the gains I achieve, I think you might understand why this is necessary sometimes. Furthermore, as I have already said, it is no secret. This nom de plume and the reason I use it is KNOWN by all that I trade with regularly -- between 20-30 persons who will all attest to this fact. With all of the research you did to find my post with this error, I'm a little surprised you missed the post with my explanation on it? Seems perhaps you are more interested in re-writing my history to add a few warts rather than the other way around. I have a funny feeling the truth is not what you were after to begin with? If you have a true incident of me trying to re-write history to my benefit, please get a spine and get specific. Feel free to show us all. Cheers Steve

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next