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 : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (17297)	7/12/2002 2:34:13 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

"Based upon the facts" not an effective stonewall a la Clinton.....

To: Bill who wrote (17297)	7/12/2002 2:45:03 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

"the staff does not believe that an enforcement action is appropriate in this matter." I'm sorry, Bill, but that does not mean "cleared." A partisan of the right would interpret it that way and call him "cleared." A partisan of the left would interpret it the other way and call him an "insider trader who got away with it." A disinterested party would recognize that we know only that the SEC chose not to pursue it. That most likely means simply they did not have a sufficient case.