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 : Auric Goldfinger's Short List -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mmmary who wrote (9917)	5/27/2002 10:34:42 PM
From: benchpress550	Respond to of 19428

Tony hasn't even been found guilty "Elgindy has been charged with racketeering, stock manipulation, extortion, misuse of confidential law enforcement information and obstruction of justice for his role in the alleged stock-manipulation scheme. Prosecutors want to move Elgindy to New York for trial" uniontrib.com opps he has been charged and now a judge and jury will tell us if he is guilty. I think this is not the first time anus@penis been in front of a judge for federal crimes.

To: mmmary who wrote (9917)	5/28/2002 1:20:28 AM
From: dacoola	Respond to of 19428

I find a vast difference between a "scambuster" and an astute short seller. I fear that you have a hard time telling which is which.

To: mmmary who wrote (9917)	5/28/2002 9:45:15 AM
From: Edscharp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19428

Mary, I'm hurt. I am not 'indicting' Auric and I agree with you 100% that Anthony is entitled to a fair trial. I have told you so in writing on the RB board (url below) ragingbull.lycos.com There is a vast difference between innocent inquiry and indictment. I regret you have trouble perceiving the difference. And yes, I can understand Auric's concern about guilt by association. All the more reason, it seems to me, for him to issue a clear statement about his relationship or non-relationship with Anthony. Given the business that all of you are in you must surely understand how it looks when a person or business refuses to answer simple questions. You know as well as I do that if a company or an officer refuses to answer investor inquiries it only gives the impression that something is being hidden. I don't know how many times I've seen on one message board or another, the criticism of a company that refuses to answer questions at a shareholders meeting. It's almost always viewed as a 'red flag' Now true enough, neither Auric nor Anthony, are obliged to answer questions and Mary that is fine by me if they don't. Maybe even understandable. I am merely suggesting that when you have an information vacuum there are people who will fill in that vaccuum with all kinds of unsubstantiated rumors, innuendos and speculations. I don't personally approve of this kind of behavior, but it will happen anyway.