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 : Brokerage-Chat Site Securities Fraud: A Lawsuit -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dr.MensaWannabe who wrote (460)	7/1/2001 5:46:05 PM
From: JustTradeEm	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

Oh man, personally, I believe you're both boring the masses at this point ..... Have fun pushing eachother off the swingset .... Peace .... JB

To: Dr.MensaWannabe who wrote (460)	7/1/2001 6:09:09 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

I discussed my career and standing here - at great length, I might add. Why do you refuse to do so? I think now everyone here knows what your intentions are. You see, the claims you are making are baseless and false. Not quite. However, if you are representing the firm* when you assert that she will not be a plaintiff I suppose she will have to contact another firm this week.* There you go again with your loaded legalistic inquiries. I wonder if you can be any more transparent than you have been this afternoon. As for Lisa dropping her attempts to interfere in my relationship with Counsel, and both yours and her (if they are truly different, which I do not know) threats about that relationship, about which you know absolutely nothing, and contacting another law firm, that strikes me as an excellent idea. I will not have dishonest co-plaintiffs standing alongside me in court. I imagine this holds for all other honest plaintiffs also. Is the answer as to whether any of your buddies have posted under simultaneous premium accounts also privileged? Come again? To which "buddies" are you referring, lol? Please clarify this insinuating-I-don't-know-what statement. That is laughable. Take one look at this thread and see how many "buddies" I have at SI who would post on my behalf. My goodness. I hope everyone at SI who is objective will perfectly well understand my tone when they read through the complete history of this thread and my statements, beginning over on Anthony@Pacific's thread this past Tuesday evening. I have answered a great many loaded questions here that likely in a court of law would have been objected to and ruled out of order by a judge. That is because I have nothing to hide and wish to be candid. You, "DMW," in refusing now many times to answer my questions, expose yourself and your motivation completely. First you stated that you "think" you answered my questions but you are "not sure." Now you completely reverse yourself, wishing and demanding to trade statements with me as if in a Turkish bazaar. I don't think so. The Truth does not have a bid and ask when all is said in done, except where the corrupt are concerned. Well, thank-you very much for this enlightening and illuminating discussion. Now perhaps members here can understand my tone the past week. O.A.