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.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DanZ who wrote (4167)	10/5/1999 5:58:00 PM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Respond to of 10293

I said: It is wrong to falsely accuse someone of a crime that they haven't committed and you and others are wrong for condoning it. You said: I don't know the accusation to be false. Exactly. So since I have not accepted your implied assertion that the accustion is false, then the rest of what you say is meaningless. Let's de-personalize your little bank robbery example and try it again, shall we? A police sergeant gets a phone call. "Help!" says the voice on the other end. "Someone's robbing the First National Bank of Fraudsville!" Should the sergeant say: 1. "We'll send a squad car right over!" 2. "That's an awfully serious allegation. Prove it!" The police arrive, and an arrest is promptly made. The local newspaper writes up the incident. After reading the newspaper account, do you: 1. Move on to the next story. 2. Call up the newspaper editor and demand proof that an attempted bank robbery occurred. I only said that to show you how irrelevant your statement was. Which is appropriate because that statement was only to show how irrelevant the statement before was. <And just plain wrong.> It's not wrong. Is too. If GummTech forces Bill to eat his claim of stock fraud that will be the first time (and as far as I am concerned, the last). The fact that Bill has elected not to attempt to convince you of his claim is... well, I think you know the rest.