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: jlallen who wrote (17579)	7/16/2002 8:57:04 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Yes or no? Assuming equivalent circumstances, yes. If I was a corporate insider, privy to confidential information, and I sold my shares immediately prior to a major negative disclosure, then I would accept that any thinking person would assume that I'd done something illegal and say so. I'd just be glad I didn't leave any hard evidence. I might be a bit piqued if it really had been just coincidence, but we both know that that sort of coincidence doesn't happen in the real world. there was no evidence to support it and in fact there was plenty of exculpatory evidence and facts No evidence to support it? What are you talking about? All the circumstantial evidence points directly at illegality. That deal has red flags flying all over it. The only exculpatory factor is the absence of either documentary evidence or personal testimony proving that the person making insider trade actually had the information in question.

To: jlallen who wrote (17579)	7/16/2002 9:08:23 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 21057

in fact there was plenty of exculpatory evidence and facts but no clear "ace" that totally exonerated you I was glad to see you post that. I had gotten the impression that you and Bill were under the impression that Bush had been utterly exonerated. You can't make that claim. Steve can't make that claim as fact any more than you could make the claim that Bush had been exonerated. People can look at the information available and believe either one if they're into "belief" or they can gather their life experiences, instincts, and beliefs and argue that one of the other is the more likely explanation. Neither exoneration nor "got away with it." Can be clearly demonstrated. Steve has always made it clear that he was merely stating what he thought more likely. I'm inferring now that you understand that and are simply stating your belief in Bush's character, not the fact of exoneration. you'd be OK with people constantly repeating those unproven charges I understand your distress over that. It is a sad aspect of our culture that buzz over allegations so often carry the day. I don't know what can be done about that. Most of us here "believe" of think it very likely that OJ killed his wife, despite being acquitted. That widespread belief or likelihood will not go away short of him finding the "real killer." There are also those who belief that he didn't do it and that he was exonerated. In the absence of a smoking gun or an "ace," that's just the way it works. In this case, much of the buzz is generated by partisans, to be sure. Some of the buzz is generated by media and public fascination for potential scandal. Some of the buzz is generated by a general skepticism over corporate shenanigans and government investigations. There is nothing unique about this particular potential scandal except that it may be a bit more "buzzy" because of the Whitewater counterpoint. I appreciate your distress over it, but I don't know what's to be done about it. Perhaps it would be helped by making public more information about the SEC investigation, as OMD suggested, or a more thorough investigation, one that actually interviewed the principals, or perhaps that would just stretch it out more without resolving anything. It's for the political handlers to determine the best strategy for handling it. All we can do here, you and I and Steve, is to recognize that there is a range of possible interpretations including innocence and getting away with it and be clear that we are all just expressing our preferences among those explanations. BTW, I have not expressed any preference, only tried to point out that there is no definitive evidence one way or the other.