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: E who wrote (17468)	7/14/2002 11:45:01 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I'm referring this to my attorney, Mr. Allen, for comment. [Gee, you REALLY couldn't figure out how to post it to him? You POOR thing! Let me help you! Here's his profile: Member 4357004 Now as of now, THE FIRST POST ON THAT PROFILE IS ONE BY JLA ON THIS THREAD! Can you figure the rest out yourself? If not, feel free to contact me. Always glad to help. :-) ] You know, this game is a lot more fun when you're playing offense than defense. Much easier throwing rocks than getting hit by them. Oh, well. Maybe it'll be back to Dems in '04 and we get a fresh target. :-)

To: E who wrote (17468)	7/15/2002 10:22:44 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 21057

E, That article from the VV was, IMO, a poor attempt at a hatchet job. What the article says, in essence, is: 1. Bush was an entrepreneur, a risk taker, and some of his early risks failed. As most entrepreneurial risks do. That's why they call them "risks". 2. Harken ultimately became his business venture and was strangely rescued by Bahrain at a time when they were cozying up to Bush Sr. Nowhere does the article say that Bush Sr. (or Dubya) did anything inappropriate with respect to Bahrain (a longtime U.S. ally) that could be linked even remotely to that relatively small transaction. 3. Bush sold stock as an insider to buy a baseball team, and reported it late, but the SEC decided after a review (how do they know it was "perfunctory"?) not to pursue the matter. (This is the review we debated last week whether it constituted "exoneration"). 4. Other Bush family members did questionable things, including his grandfather and some brothers. Well, guess what, my brothers and father have probably done things I am not proud of. And if anyone judged me based on those things I would get really pissed off. Why is one-third of this article about Bush's relatives doing bad stuff? Because it's a hatchet job, and an inartful one at that.

To: E who wrote (17468)	7/15/2002 12:04:38 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

He dumped the shares shortly before the firm tanked, then failed to report his activity to the Securities and Exchange Commission for months. Hahaha. Laughable. First, the firm never tanked! It's been alive for 23 years and the same management team that was there in 1990 is there today. And the stock more than doubled within a year after Bush sold. Second, Bush reported his activity to the SEC as required on form 144. He filed form 4 late, but as experienced investors, we know that form 144 is the one that counts. It signals to us non insiders that an insider is going to sell. That was filed properly. This article is even more disingenuous than your friend Krudman.