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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Can you beat 50% per month? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: (Bob) Zumbrunnen who wrote (5091)	12/12/2002 6:46:21 AM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19256

Quite frankly, I think that your stonewalling on simple questions of whether or not you had a formal or informal relationship with someone who was integral to SI does not help your credibility. I'm not suggesting anything. I thought my questions would give you a chance to put it to rest. There has been much debate as to whether organized shorts used SI in perhaps a manipulative way. Any efforts by employees to help in this regard would be a cause for concern by this enterprise. If someone with power to suspend an account used this for any personal gain, it might be actionable. However, damages may be very difficult to prove. Yet, this is not my reason for inquiry. I think it would be good to get all these things out in the open. Too many are quick to jump into court to prove their version of principle. In my oppinion, this is one of the major problems with our court system. The cost of proving oneself right is too expensive and usually met with someone on the other side equally willing to spend money in search of that victory. "Innocent until proven broke," is the usual result. I think you'd be bettr off laying it out on the table if you have nothing to hide. After all, you have chosen to respond to Jon/Scott rather than just quietly going away after severing your ties with SI.