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 : MANIPULATION IS RAMPANT --- Can We Stop It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave Gore who wrote (374)	6/16/2002 5:49:25 PM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 589

[Y]our attempt to deal in minutia... So the difference between (a) a settlement with a regulatory body and (b) a guilty verdict in a court of law is "minutia"? You're attempting to dismiss a lack of essential knowledge by suggesting that relevant details are somehow insignificant. It comes across as a bit pathetic, to be honest. If you're going to preach the gospel of Uberregulation, at least know what the various entities do, and where they fit in - okay? ...is a childish and inaccurate attempt... Childish? Ouch, that hurts! Then again: twice, now, in the face of the relevant points I've raised you've whined that you're going to take your marbles and go home. Inaccurate? You posted that an individual and firm were "found guilty" of manipulation. No such thing occurred in either a literal or figurative sense. ...to discredit and deflect eyes from the main issues here. There we go - I knew we'd reach this point eventually. As I have said repeatedly, your misleading use of essential terminology, non sequitirs of logic, and in some cases absurdly biased, noncredible articles bring far more discredit upon your posts than I could ever hope to, if indeed that were my purpose. And pertaining to a "deflect[ion] of eyes": as noted, you previously stated that my opinions are no more valid than anyone elses. I agreed then, and still do. Are you now suggesting that there's a conspiracy afoot against this thread? For instance, the word guilty does not only apply to a legal case of wrongdoing, as in "guilty" or "not guilty". No scheiss, schmuck. Why do you think I specified both meanings of the world guilty by saying, "whether in a rigid legal or semantic sense" in my previous post? Message 17609720 For the nth time: learn to read. Alternately, repeat the following chant - faster and faster each time - until you feel cool waves of understanding wash cathartically over you. I M WE TODD ED (repeat) :-) LP.