>>>A few weeks ago, I posted a note on this thread that referred to your greeting here as less than warm and hospitable. I also mentioned that had you responded in a more civil manner you may have been accepted here. <<<
Steve, that is all well and good I guess I would ask you just how much inhospitable treatment is one required to take in order to be ACCEPTABLE HERE?
>>You have constantly referred to the people
who post on this thread as idiots and fools. <<
Steve there may be exceptions that prove the rule but I believe that if you gave my posts the same reading that I ask you to give the PR's you will find that I refer to generic fools and idiots and at least
try not to be specific UNLESS THE PARTICULAR FOOL HAS CALLED ME A NAME FIRST.
>>Not all of us bashed you at the outset.
That is to your credit, should I thank you, which I really do Steve, or should I grovel like some here might think?
>> After several months, you finally got to me.
Sorry about that Steve, but I'll bet I never said anything bad TO you untill you said something bad TO me.
>>You and one or two others may have thought you were quite humorous.
Humor is one way to handle the situation, crying is another, or name calling is the way used by most here. Now really which do you prefer?
>>I did not.
That is fine. I haven't bashed anyone for giving my comedy a poor review, if that is as far as it went.
>>I have no problem at all with people not giving out e-mail addresses >>or using pseudonyms to post here.
Well those here who do, only apply that to people who have anything negative to say. Case in point: David Curry who was just fine when as one of the DUPED he acted like a major duper. He was on the secret E-mail thread without posting his e-mail address here and that was just fine. When he finally woke up he was bashed as being one of the anonymous. Interesting isn't it?
>>>In various posts, you talk of "taking the high ground"
>>>and "in the broad light of day." It does bother me that a
>>> person who hides behind a shield of anonymity would
>>>make those outlandish statements.
Steve put those statements in proper context and they are not outlandish at all. I am bashed as being too cowardly, lacking credibility, etc., etc., for having no e-mail address. I WAS THE ONE FIRST ATTACKED FOR NOT STANDING IN THE LIGHT OF DAY ETC; but, everything I say is on this public forum and will sit here as evidence till the site closes down. Those who bash me, also spend a lot of time doing something on private e-mail where they claim to be trading the "in crowd" knowledge. Which is really IN THE LIGHT OF DAY?
>>>You have taken confrontation to another level.
>>>Of particular consternation to me is your constant
>>>referring to Tim O'Brien as "Father Timmey."
Well Steve you seem to be more consternated than FATHER TIMMEY is, because we sat here one evening and he acknowledged that it really didn't bother him BECAUSE HE HAD CALLED ME A LOT WORSE THINGS. At least he was that fair. So why do you need to take up that cause?
>>>You have time and time again claimed he is doing one thing and preaching another. Tim has often claimed to be long on CCEE. Now, let's assume that a person who trades against a position in a stock while maintaining an inventory of that stock is still considered to be long on that stock.<<<
That is pretty much what I have said, that at the very least people should do to protect themselves in this one.
>>>That being the case, please show me where he 1)
>>>stated that people should buy and hold and 2) ridiculed
>>>you for telling people to take tax losses.
I'll see what I can find in my database but I am not using dbjavastuff.
>>>I have looked for that information through thousands of posts on this thread and am unable to locate those references which, by the way, seem to make up a great deal of your argument about some evil secret e-mail thread in which people are trading all sorts of secret inside information about CCEE and you.<<<
I don't give a damn what they are trading about me. THEY infer that if people on this thread could just get rid of ME that then everybody would have access to the INFORMATION that is being circulated on the e-mail thread. I guess they circulate it there to protect it from my showing how it is crap, and perhaps I have sensitized someone about the fact that posting some things here might be illegal.
>>>If you cannot provide me with a sound basis for calling a
>>>respected member of this thread a liar, then you should
>>>apologize to Tim and the thread in general.
I think what I call him is a hypocrite, and most of that is in the nature of a hell of a lot better natured ribbing, than what is leveled at me.
>>>If you can show me that Tim has urged
>>>people to buy and hold while trading the stock,
>>>I will apologize to you for any remarks
>>>I have made about you that you find uncalled for.
Tell you what Steve, do what I did when I said basically the same thing to Steve Bergman and then found out that I was WAY OUT IN LEFT FIELD WITH HIM. Help me look and/or e-mail (no slam intended here) Tim and ask him to help. I know that he did say something about making money TRADING.
One last thing, I like people who are loyal to friends, that is why I like Ronald Stuart, and why I was just as sensitive to him being brutalized by others. I never jumped you for your less than kind
remarks about him the way I did Gary. Even there there was one hell of a difference. For the most part I believe most of us can fend for ourselves. Tim and I have gone toe to toe and I have never brutalized him like was done to Ron. You didn't do that and anything that Ron and I said to you was in keeping with and in balance with what ever you had done. I want to tell you that I do not have any ill will against Tim. I think he is a lot smarter than some of the things he has said here but now that you mention it so am I.
One last thing, I can take as well as dish out. I have a sense of humor and Stan's wav's are great. Ginger used to do her thing with the dictionary I probably appreciated that even more because it took more thought on her part, but the humor of it is quite ok.
Later
Rick |
