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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9124)	8/18/1999 12:13:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 9980

but being a former CIA operations spook, I'll betcha he was more interested in seeing what he could collect from those visiting Chinese, than he was about protecting our information. Note: I was not implying that I was/am, or will be a former CIA spook.... One must maintain plausible deniability... <VBG>

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9124)	8/18/1999 9:02:00 AM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9980

G'day all - hi Ron, thank you for a spirited defense <g>, but, sorry if I am being nosy, but I think you may have missed Ron B's point [I guess I should not speak for Ron B, therefore, here is how I see the exchanges.] Granted that Vrooman has vested interests in the case, CYA, if you insist on using a loaded term to make him a marked man, the problem, even up to this point, is the leap of logic to suggest one person's guilt with the speculation of another person's position. First, there was the speculation of a demotion. Then, it is the no respectable pro would want the job. The problem is: even if it were true, it wouldn't reveal an iota of evidence of the real case, let alone "pretty damning evidence." Besides, thus far, it seems that no one has disputed the fact that the former has urged the probe be widen to include others. So, where did the buck stop? Or, let's us use another analogy in line with your argument. Let's assume a parole officer, who has been dispensing his duties with all the official protocol, had 5 parolees under his charge. Then, one day parolee A was caught violating the term of parole. Suddenly, parolee B was being accused without substantive evidence and the parole officer was accused of derelict of duties. Worse, rumor began to circulate that this parole officer is indeed a lousy official - and therefore, parolee B had to be guilty! I must say that I am more interested in understanding people's logic [blame it on my misspent youth of taking delight in argumentation <SG>] than in this particular case, which I feel offer too little factual evidence, in a holistic term, for the general public to make hay best, Bosco