Assuming you were intending to tell the truth in the first place, perhaps you need to take some Ginko Biloba (memory enhancer).
<<<I "know" Doctor AHhaha for about as long as you do. Perhaps several weeks prior, going back to the origins of the Silk Road thread, when we both encountered your first challenges together. It was, perhaps, this need to bond against such actions by you that was actually responsible for promoting an association between AHhaha and myself. Thanks>>
They say that the second thing that goes in a man is his memory. It appears that you forgot how well you knew Ah before I appeared on the SR scene.
Post 1,2,3 on Silkroad (SR) was by Ah 11/7/98
post 5,6 by you 11/8/98
Of next 412 posts, You posted 140 posts, Ah posted 89 posts. As you now know, it looked to me like a tag team effort to pump the stock. This huge posting effort represented 56% of the total posts. It appeared to me that most of the other posts on SR were by people who thought the company was a scam.
Also ref on ATHM thread:
<<<
To: RocketMan who wrote (3585)
From: ahhaha Tuesday, Dec 29, 1998 3:34 PM ET
Reply # of 19550
Relax. I throw stones at Frank Coluccio who is my partner in crime on the SilkRoad thread. If I'm hitting you over the head, wake up, and see what's my problem. Then yell like hell. It's how you make progress via dialectic interaction, the most effective learning method known and the one avoided by the universities. >>>>
( I have to admire Ah. He tells us his Partner in CRIME and then he LHAO at us fool Patzers) <:}
My first post on SR was 412 June 9, 1999
This was seven months after Ah and you started SR and you knew AH before that. No, I did not bring you together with Ah and bond you. If you had not lost your memory on this subject, I may have thought that you were lying.
I don't know if Ah is a Doctor of squat. A title means nothing anyway in cyberspace especially when the person has a anon name. Could it be that you are trying to build up his credibility by calling him doc? He calls himself Ahhaha, and that is who he should be until he gives us his proper name (no phony title should be used even if the real person rates one).
<it absolutely demands that differing opinions be aired>
That is what I am trying to do. My limited posting is less than one tenth of yours and Ah's. I get plenty fed up with negative people who may be short the stock who are feeding and reinforcing peoples fears. I get sick of hearing why something won't work. If someone made all those excuses or told me that he couldn't do the job. I would fire him and get someone who could do the job. Hundreds of people who used to post on the ATHM thread (plus tons of lurkers) have became discouraged and have sold their positions. I suspect you and Ah have helped many of these people make up their minds. A great deal of the technical doubt stuff belongs on a thread like "last mile" where it does not effect one stock.
<<<
To: Andeveron who wrote (2317)
From: ahhaha Saturday, Jun 27, 1998 11:38 PM ET
... I'm overdue to send my short selling hordes against the next fraud. ... >>
He will not have to look too far, I suspect he may even find fraud as close as Silkroad.
<:}
< Pray tell, what should the mission of this thread be? At one time it was, as I myself accused it of being, an "I'm okay, you're okay" kind of place, which I am happy to say it is no longer. Would you prefer that the board return there? >
Yes, to a certain degree. As a long investor I would prefer more positive PR. I do not mind a reasonable amount of negative PR. IMO, when the negative PR appears to be part of some effort to trash the stock, that effort needs to be exposed and countered.
<<But, here's what you don't do: You don't line up folks with opposing views against the wall with a tommy gun in your hands, even if it is just above their heads where you intend to aim. This is simply being uncouth, plain and simple.>>
The British thought the rag tag colonials were uncouth for hiding behind trees and shooting them. Not only that but them rag-a-muffens didn't even have proper uniforms on. Did that make the colonialists wrong (or uncouth)?
No! the British were wrong in that case.
KWW |
