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.

Non-Tech : The ENRON Scandal -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (2156)	2/2/2002 12:11:29 PM
From: JBTFD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5185

That article annoyed me also. I got as far as the QA you posted and skipped the rest. I'd appreciate if you can elaborate on how the partnership investors got 30%. I havent seen anything on this.

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (2156)	2/2/2002 3:13:11 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 5185

Dave Barry Defended - "I'm shocked, shocked that there's shredding going on here!" Whoa Duke, Re: Dave Barry's Maimi Herald Article and I must tell you that statements like that are what politely may be called "inoperative", i.e., they don't help understand or inform about this or any problem. They are cute, witty and utterly USELESS!! Duke, Duke, Duke. Dave Barry is a syndicated humorist. Lighten up! It's his job to be cute, witty and USELESS. Ironically, it is very useful to him. He makes a darn good living writing this sort of stuff. If you want useless, you should read his columns about his house cats. Oy vey! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kind sir, if you could hang some of the URLs you referred to in you astute comments I would be much appreciative. I can see that it might behoove me to start to clutter up my own hard drive with pages that may inexplicably become Error 404ed. TIA! :) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your synopsis of Clinton getting a chance to compromise is wonderful. I could learn something by reading your comments. And I already have. <g> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So, to summarize the LJM partnerships, they were a Ponzi scheme. At least that seems to be the drift of it. With the investing public providing the grease and gristle. As a friend of mine once put it about street hustlers: "If you ain't woikin' an angle, you are the angle." Or as a Wall Street hand put it in a job interview when asked about J.P. Morgan's character, he replied: "Al Capone in a top hat." All the best, Ray