Nanny,
Although I never approved of Ivan's approach, the fact that he often wrote nasty posts is not the reason he is being sued (as far as I can tell). So for you to bring these old posts up seems kind of silly to me. Would you like people to dig out your ludicrous "I'm-going-to-sue-Pierre" post or your "The-Market-is-huge (but no, I have no facts)" post?? Your posts come off as being just as nasty as Ivan's (complete with lawsuit threats and half-truths)...it's just that you happen to be Long (and, I must say, you are a bit more tactful, which is nice).
Also, while I still have my soapbox, in your message #6495, you pasted this copy of Ivan's message:
------------
>To: Jason A. Rush (1976 )
>From: Ivan L.
>Feb 20 1997 4:23PM EST
>Reply #1980 of 6495
>
>Dear Jason:
>
>It alwalys gives me great personal satisfaction when I can help crush a stock and beat a
>guy like you out of their money......
>
>Thanks in advance for making me feel so good, sucker.............
>
>Ivan
------------
Again, I agree...totally inappropriate! However, do you know to which message Ivan was replying? It was this one:
-------
>To: James C. Shircliff (1964 )
>From: Jason A. Rush
>Feb 20 1997 12:55PM EST
>Reply #1976 of 6518
>
>The 14 cents of 4Q DID NOT INCLUDE the 4 cents from the lawsuit.
_____
Well, this message (in BIG LETTERS even) was completely inaccurate, as James pointed out:
_____
>To: Pierre Panet-Raymond (2243 )
>From: James C. Shircliff
>Apr 2 1997 4:35PM EST
>Reply #2244 of 6512
>
>The 1996 10K for PRST is now available on EDGAR.
>...for those who care about such nonsense.
>Verrry interesting!!! Go look!
>And a word to the bull who spread false info here after the 4Q came out...
>THE AGFA SETTLEMENT WAS INCLUDED IN THE 4Q96!!! IT ADDED 5 CENTS PER >SHARE PRETAX!!!
>It was treated as a reduction of expenses. Just imagine if that had been released at the time of >the earnings news! The % growth in earnings would have been a lot less and Mr. L would not >have been able to trumpet the rate! And the stock would have dropped even further.
>More goodies for bears...
>(Bye for several days ... spring break with the kids!)
>Jim
_____
So you see, maybe Ivan had reason to be a little upset (although, again, I would have stated my opinion a little differently than Ivan "Mr. Manners 1997" Lustig).
My point out of all this?
Well, I've said this before...I wish both the Longs and Shorts could try to elaborate and explain the statements they make, and provide names, links, phone numbers--anything factual--so that we can find the truth in this stock. Your posts (which rarely, if ever, provide facts) are even more detrimental because they simply bash the Shorts and threaten lawsuits. We will never find any truth using your methods. We have already lost James S. due to your threats. Why don't you try turning your energy into something more useful...try understanding why Paul, Pierre, GVTucker, etc. think this stock is overvalued...try to put yourself in their shoes and research this stock as if you were a Short...try to (dare I say this?) reconcile to the Seybold report.
I am sure that, if you agreed to this, your point-of-view would be greatly appreciated by the Longs.
-Kris |
