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: eims2000 who wrote (56245)	5/16/2000 9:54:00 AM
From: scheherezadesdance	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Who I am is irrelevant. Can you tell me that what I said is not plausible? I don't understand why all these people try to insist that I am Matt Tyson. I thought Tony said Matt Tyson is on the run. I am not Matt Tyson. Bear Down has a better grasp of what happened than you. Or perhaps it is just the way you want to try to spin it. If anything, you should be questioning why the Judge did what he did and exclaiming that it seemed unbalanced. On the face of the facts it certainly does seem imbalanced when comparing it to a two time offender that commited an armed robbery. Do you think Tony's attorney thinks the comparison and outcome is balanced. I bet not. Tony's crime was a white collar crime and a first offense and something that took place years ago. This is what Tony's followers use to downplay the offense. Over and over we have seen his followers discount what he did by saying it was years ago and it really doesn't matter anymore. Now look at the other case. Armed robbery is not a white collar crime although embezzling is a white collar crime. You would be more served by portraying the imbalance rather than saying the Judge gave him the absolute minimum and it all turned out favorable to Tony. It did not. The question is, why did it not? I agree with Bear Down. Based on what he is portraying the comparison and justification doesn't meet the sentence handed down. I think there were other factors at play. If not, the Judge is one odd judge - which could very well be the case.