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 : Currencies and the Global Capital Markets -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (2104)	9/22/1999 2:06:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3536

You're quite right that all factors should be considered and I'm not excusing Armstrong for any actual crime that he may have committed. The courts will decide that. As for what he may have done 30 years ago, that is an interesting story. I guess I have to ask why Armstrong would be so foolish to offer stamps for sale they he did not possess. Did he believe that he could obtain those stamps and make delivery to a customer? Who knows? But offering stamps for sale is not a crime. Taking actual money in exchange for something that one can not reasonably deliver is. Did money exchange hands during this transaction? Bringing up something from 30 years ago, without showing how someone was actually financially harmed, strikes me as somewhat ridiculous. Regards, Ron

To: Thomas M. who wrote (2104)	9/22/1999 2:13:00 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3536

Tom, Ron, That WSJ story raises more questions than it answers. It is mildly bizarre as reproduced in your post, which is, I presume, taken from the Journal. Why exactly did it take 27 years to clear up this great "mystery"? Especially if the stamps were so rare, as it is alleged? There are missing details here. We don't know if, for example, the second collector bought the stamps from Armstrong. And in any case, even if the innuendos that Journal tries to express are true, Armstrong's age at the time must be taken into account. What people do in their 20s should not necessarily be held against them 30 years later--even if the people are, e.g., Martin Armstrong or George W. Bush (which is another reason for opposing the law Bush through and believing him to be an ass for not answer the coke question, but nevermind, that is another tale which I won't comment further on). This is not to defend the man, he may be guilty as charged for all I know. And he may not be. We'll see if there is any convincing evidence presented. -------------- EDIT: Just read Ron's post previous to this one. Agreed. Add his questions to the ones asked above.