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.

Pastimes : Sound Off - Speak Your Mind -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ibg who wrote (289)	1/23/2001 10:10:36 AM
From: eichler	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 595

ibg Nice detective work. I also checked his profile, some of his recent posts. The guy is a maroon, obviously not busy enough at his job, but he tries not to abuse his employers time too much... (from his own posts on his boxing thread)GGG. It was extremely obvious, once his weak argument was attacked that he had nothing left than bluff, name-calling, back pedaling, argument twisting. He claims in his posts to be a former boxer. This, I completely believe as it is so very, very obvious the guy got smacked in the head one too many times. Someone to feel sorry for..... Anyway, once I got it that his thrill was for the argument itself, as opposed to a civil, intelligent discussion, I was quick to use the IGNORE feature. What a handy tool that is, sure takes care of obnoxious problems such as that in a hurry. Regards, Eichler

To: ibg who wrote (289)	1/23/2001 2:45:27 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 595

Nice try. lps5 wrote: Message 13223954 tony replies: That is incorrect Message 13231167 tony also writes to lps5… LOL, not quite. Tony asks a rhetorical question in this message, “why should MM's have more advantageous rules?” which I reply to, and which you - strangely! - didn’t choose to include. Hmmm. But, of course - you merely forgot to include my interim message, right? You didn't purposely omit it to try to obscure the content of the conversation, right? Folks, this is the next message in the series: http://www.siliconinvestor.com/msg_multireplies.gsp?msgid=13231167 THEN this one followed: Message 13231587 surprise lps5 quickly agrees: siliconinvestor.com. What’s the surprise? If you read through these messages, you’ll find nothing but a discussion, which does not, in any way, contradict anything I’ve said. *** Furthermore, during this discussion - which you chose to cite, choosing to do so by misrepresenting the actual context of the conversation - I posted this: I believe that they key to a competitive, functional, and fair dealer market in NASDAQ is found somewhere between both providing some advantages to firms that actually make markets AND penalizing or barring from market making those who do not[.] Which is consistent with these excerpts from last weekend: Message 15216454 “Indeed, it would equally ridiculous to assert that there are no manipulative or off-color actions undertaken on Wall Street. I tell anyone who asks me, though (and some who don't, truth be told) that places where far more reform is needed than on securities trading desks are on security analysts' desks and in the registration, supervision, and disciplining of stockbrokers and the retail firms that employ them as their primary business. Yes; there are places where reform is certainly required, but all too often trading is entirely misunderstood.” Message 15216689 “Manipulation exists, but it does not "permeate" market centers or stock exchanges in any sense. Wrongdoing indeed occurs on Wall Street, as it does in doctor’s offices, behind police stations, in supermarkets and in churches.” Where is the sudden, “surprise” agreement with any point that you maintain I’d previously objected to that you seek to illustrate? “these posts to and by lps5 run contraire to some of lps5's statements” Where others’ posts “run...contraire” to mine, they are called differences of opinion. They make for great conversation, reflection, and - at times - a change of heart. *Show me where one of my posts “run[s] contra[ry] to...[any]...of [my] statements.”*

To: ibg who wrote (289)	1/23/2001 2:56:08 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 595

[I] read the mdd thread among a few others on si and was interested in this lps5 character who attacked you... Curious also that you’d use the word “attack” in light of these choice excerpts from recent posts you've made to people on SI: “you are such a blow hard.” “...maybe they should have kicked your ass.” “i guess you can include yourself in the group of bums.” “i fully understand good analysis and i have seen several on si that deliver on a regular basis. you never have and never will in any format.” “what is it with these jerks...” And what, in any of these messages qualifies as an “attack”? Message 15216101 “But you seem to suggest - and correct me if I read your message wrong - that there is something insidious afoot. How do equity, fixed income, or options markets (whether or not they are exchanges, and however they operate) "manipulate" sentiment? Are you suggesting that there is a conspiracy at work? That above and beyond the market participants (putting aside the popularly ludicrous proposal that they are all "corrupt enterprises" in every aspect of their businesses), the exchanges and market centers are corrupt and have malevolent, ulterior motives as well? Or that the alternative to a market - which would seem to be an "infinitely" fragmented, often price discontinuous, inarguably information-bereft environment of dissociated buying and selling - would be an improvement?” Message 15216454 “I still - respectfully, as you have been respectful to me - completely dismiss the notion that manipulation is the "primary" pricing mechanism of equities across the spectrum of listed and NASDAQ issues.” And, in the same message: “Regards, hope to speak with you again sometime.” Message 15216689 There are, as I said, too many things going on to make more than an assumption, whether based upon past experience or - as it seems to be in your case - the unwillingness to consider that you might not be omniscient. If you don't like what I say, ban me. I will not accept, and will address, statements representing certitude (perhaps misrepresenting is a better term) on issues that are - beyond wanton speculation (or parroting, both popular in the message board culture) - simply not certifiable.” "...attacked..." Hypersensitivity or hypocrisy?