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.

Politics : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Annette who wrote (2703)	9/15/2001 8:31:34 PM
From: alanrs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27666

Just for yucks I went to this guys web site and started to look around. He asserts that the IRS is an agent of the Puerto Rican treasury, and that the fact that he has published this assertion without it being officially disputed is proof of it's accuracy. There is a lot of lunacy in the world. ARS

To: Annette who wrote (2703)	9/15/2001 8:39:16 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 27666

Personally I like the possibility of a photo op with a president and some bearded arabs in hand cuffs. But I would not believe in that. Nor would I believe in $10 a barrel, nor even $100 a barrel, but there might be opportunities, as always after an election.

To: Annette who wrote (2703)	9/15/2001 9:51:33 PM
From: (Bob) Zumbrunnen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27666

This guy reads like he's mad as a hatter. It's not even worth the hour it would take to type the explanations to all the holes in his allegations that I can think of just off the top of my head. Like how, according to his view, all the interviews with people who're pleased as punch must've been faked. Or that to a lot of people, hurting a hated enemy is "benefit" enough. Completely ignoring the fact that "benefit" (as in "profit from") isn't a required motive. Or the fact that the people he claims couldn't have been the terrorists are known to have been on the planes. Or..... It's really too easy. The guy's an absolute nut-case. He raises a few good, provocative points, but he makes huge leaps of faith to arrive at conclusions he hasn't even remotely proven. Like his first paragraph. He says "I can tell you" that these folks wouldn't "benefit". Therefore they must not've done it, according to him. Because he can "tell" us so. He reads like a Gary Dobry, but with a command of the language and an understanding of (though abuse of) logic. Bet he thinks he knows what really happened to Amelia Earheart, too.