Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Global Thermoelectric - SOFC Fuel cells (GLE:TSE) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scoobah who wrote (2906)	8/7/1999 2:26:00 PM
From: Edward W. Richmond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6016

It's all about about credibility about the OBJECTIVITY of the posts and whether the post is OFF TOPIC. Sorry, H2SteveO, but, although I bear you no ill will, in my opinion, your posts are, to say the least, tainted. There is nothing personal in my opinion or response, I've just been taken too many times by promoters/insiders/sharters and vested interest posters who don't necessarily have MY best interests at heart. That sums up my position, I think. Best regards, Ed

To: Scoobah who wrote (2906)	8/7/1999 2:47:00 PM
From: StockPro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6016

H2SteveO, I read the post, that you originally responded to (posted by CH4), as a humorous piece of diversion and "assumed" that CH4 had posted it with tongue in cheek. As you say, the "emotional buzzwords" were a dead giveaway. With the above in mind, I did not feel that the post needed to be countered in any way. I may have been wrong in my assumption about the "humorous" intent of CH4's post, but nonetheless I maintain MY POSITION that hearing you lecture about other people and the bias they write with was extremely funny! Re-read my original post! I was commenting on the irony of your words. Although the particular post of yours that I picked to respond to may have been justified, does not diminish in any way the fact that YOU DO POST WITH BIAS and that YOU DO POST FOR ONLY ONE REASON AT SI. It is an unfortunate fact of life that one is judged by their past actions. In this case I judge you according to yours. In closing, I repeat, this all started by my comment that I found your pontificating on the need for un-biased comment as humorous and ironic. That view has not changed! END OF DISCUSSION. P.S. In light of my previous comments regarding my distaste for OFF TOPIC discussion, I apologize to all on this thread for wasting your time. I will try not to let it happen again ... yet at the same time, I will not cease in my attempts to squelch any spam that may show up from time to time. P.P.S. H2SteveO, perhaps your contributions to this thread would be a teeny bit more welcome without the constant "signature line" that you use. Your name is already displayed at the top of each and every one of your posts and that is sufficient for my purposes. Sincerely (and yet with tongue in cheek) Stock Pro h2steveo-sucks.com

To: Scoobah who wrote (2906)	8/7/1999 5:42:00 PM
From: AriKirA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6016

You all decided to turn it into an attack on me, and why?, just because I attacked the alleged lack of bias to the article? The attack was not because of your intervention with respect to the article. It was, and rightfully so, because of the following: On another note, DCHT has filed its FORM 10 and is now a fully reporting company, and snuck in an announcement that they are working on a fuel cell powered bus project in Nevada, with UNLV, dch-technology.com Does the H2 in front of your name stand for HARD HEADED????? Some people just can't take a hint can they. Just because a person has the financial wherewithall to participate in PPMs' doens't mean they are fair game by sneak attack artistsfor their own ego boost. The only one with an ego problem here seems to be you Mr Okinsky!!!!!!! Sincerly, NOT AK