1. I am not your Mommy, son. You'll have to keep looking.
2. Gee, Ivy, the actuality is that I very much respect some of the shorts on this thread (those would be the respectable ones) and enjoy their postings, and have often said so. Wonder why you'd imply otherwise? I guess if you can convince people that it is simply your bearish opinion that I object to, that will obscure the deficiencies in your "information."
3. ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT THE LUTTS'S SHARES. It's the least you can do, after your dishonest or ignorant (them's the choices) implications. Answer the question. Surely you didn't post those slanderous insinuations without knowing the facts? So post the truth.
4. You accuse me of making "lawsuit threats"? You say "Bring it on, mom!" To borrow Tom's question, Huh? Ivan you write incoherently, and it enables you to imply sordid things without substantiating them. Now I see you can also read incoherently, a whole new skill! Here's exactly what I said: Quote. If I were Carleton Lutts, I'd sue you for libel. Unquote.
Again, two choices: You know I'm not threatening to sue you, but pretending I am suits your purposes. OR, writing or reading, your brain is a very approximate organ.
5. So, I take it you are, in fact, the very Ivan Lustig I described in the first paragraph of my #2935? The braggart who boasted about his role in driving Presstek's share price down through his media contacts? The very one who was going to start bashing it again, and real soon, too?
6. This time, if you reply, please try to be more responsive to substance. In fact, try to behave better in general. For the sake of your mother, whoever the poor lady may be. |
