I didn't include you in any conspiracy. I asked you a fair question. And if SI has nothing to hide, then I'm sure you would have no problems discussing these issues objectively, anywhere at all.
People here have posted that I just go off half-cocked and sue everyone in sight without evidence, yet the record proves otherwise doesn't it? I've been very careful who is named.
Now let's review what our friend Mr. Tara said here:
Member 4376408
I will readily admit that I have a bias against those who will not take responsibility for their own actions. Yes, even if they have a crime committed against them. Somebody goes into the bad part of town, repeatedly, looking for trouble, and they get beat up - I have no sympathy for them.
Sorry, that sounds like a veiled threat to me. We're talking about the Nasdaq and fraud - not physical violence, so why raise that issue?
Then here we go again:
siliconinvestor.com
I didn't excuse the crime of violence. But neither do I excuse the crime of stupidity.
If somebody goes into the bad part of town, repeatedly, looking for trouble (maybe drugs, maybe stolen goods, maybe prostitution, etc.) and the dealer, fence, or pimp beats them up - well, the dealer, fence, or pimp ought to be arrested and pay the price. Did I say that they shouldn't?
But don't ask me to sob for the "victim".
You know, when, in the middle of a discussion about statutory fraud, people start talking about "the bad neighborhood," "getting beat up," "dealers," "fences" and "pimps" then I wonder what their objectives are. You find that unreasonable?
Like Graystone said, if Mr. Tara views our markets this way, where people get beat up by dealers, fences and pimps, then indeed we are living on two different planets - only on mine the rule of law is enforced. |
