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 : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: themadsnooker who wrote (52408)	3/4/2000 4:31:00 PM
From: HairBall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

themadsnooker: I hate to argue this on A@P's thread, but since TLC took exception to arguing through PM's, it's my only choice. No...you have another choice....not to argue it at all. I think the latter would be your best choice. Regards, LG

To: themadsnooker who wrote (52408)	3/4/2000 7:12:00 PM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Maybe there's something I'm misunderstanding about bankruptcy, but isn't it kind of bad form to go to a creditor you default on with only a portion of what you owe them? Wouldn't that just get them antsy for the rest? Or worse, pay off some creditors but not others, thus getting those not paid off wondering why they were left out? Where exactly is it written that a bankruptcy morally restricts one to passive forms of income generation?

To: themadsnooker who wrote (52408)	3/7/2000 7:59:00 AM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Your words would make sense if one assumed they came from either an ignorant fool or someone who has done something he's not proud of. You don't know me, and your conclusions about me, although they apparently make you feel better, are quite incorrect. You can run your little hallucination on whoever you choose, but it won't work on me. I know what you're up to. Those that know me know who and what I am. I have neither the need nor the obligation to defend what I do and what I am doing to anyone but the people that I have business agreements with. I'll say this again, since you didn't seem to get it the first time; I don't defend myself to twistoids. Since you have chosen to invent a character that fits your psychosis using what I have written publicly as an outline, I can only conclude that you have had some dealings with someone in the past that ripped you off or caused you some damage somehow. Well, you know what? You are hallucinating. That ain't me. And you know what else? What you do comes back to you. I've gotten a few PMs about my recent posts to Anthony, and only one of them was critical... ...that's right. One. Yours. Get the picture? What is your friggin' problem, dude? Are you some kind of sleazeball? Are you on acid? Coke? Jim Beam? You don't even know me! I don't really give a flying f what you did or who you are. All I know is that I don't like you because you jumped in the middle of a conversation I was having with someone else and attacked me. You are in a dream. If you think you can use me as a whipping boy to spout your mental vomit in public, you are dead wrong, pal. You need to wake the f up, like right friggin' now. You get it? You are wrong. You are pushing the envelope. The best thing for you to do is to shut the f up about things you don't understand before you make any more mistakes. Stick to what you are good at, if anything. Go hassle whoever it is you are really pissed at. Real life. Not me. I'm not a character in the movie in your head. And I don't take kindly to people who invent cartoons and then make public statements about me that are derogatory and false. I've been through it more than once. It won't work on me. That earlier post to you has been removed at my request. I did not want to get into a flame war and I asked the SI Administrator to delete it. This one ain't going away. You picked a fight, and you are still picking it. I've never done anything to you, but for some reason you seem to think it's OK to invent a hologram of who and what you think I am and then attack me. This is the action of someone who has a serious problem with reality. You need to learn some manners, sir. You asked me a personal question in your last post to me. I answered it. I asked you a personal question and now you are dissing me behind my back, in public. You lose, fool. How about an answer to the question, Clyde: Have you ever gotten somebody off that you knew was guilty?

To: themadsnooker who wrote (52408)	3/7/2000 6:47:00 PM
From: Lost1	Respond to of 122087

integrity \Integ"rity\, n. [L. integritas: cf. F. int['e]grit['e]. See Integer, and cf. Entirety.] 1. The state or quality of being entire or complete; wholeness; entireness; unbroken state; as, the integrity of an empire or territory. --Sir T. More. 2. Moral soundness; honesty; freedom from corrupting influence or motive; -- used especially with reference to the fulfillment of contracts, the discharge of agencies, trusts, and the like; uprightness; rectitude. I know nothing of you or the rest of this group, but I do know that the above definition describes a visitor to this thread...TLC Anyone who believes otherwise is WRONG. There is no reason to even attempt to persuade people to believe otherwise. It is a well documented fact and we can parade 100 people through this 'thread' to post on his behalf, but that isn't necessary. Truth needs no explanation..it simply is. Adios