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.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (9461)	3/16/2003 4:41:11 PM
From: N. Dixon	Respond to of 10293

And no, I'm NOT going to place personal info on a public message board you stupid fuck, if for no other reason that I don't want to be harrassed night and day by retards like olshmuck That's funny, you didn't think twice about publishing what you thought was MY SS# and personal information. Why a different standard for yourself? Just publish your SS#, case closed. ND

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (9461)	3/16/2003 4:49:35 PM
From: N. Dixon	Respond to of 10293

Re: An open letter to Bill Wexler by: aarrcc 03/16/03 03:55 pm Msg: 135006 of 135010 <<If Wexler did not sound credible, you wouldn't post your dumb letter to him everyday.>> If Wexler answered my questions - or even made a serious attempt at it - I wouldn't post my dumb letter. << I think the trouble you have with Wexler is that even his most outlandish accusations wouldn't surprise many if they turn out to be true -- they sound like they could be true.>> LOL. What can I say? You and I have wildly different ideas about plausibility. You acknowledge that Bill's claims are outlandish and without evidence - yet they might be true because they fit some fantasy of yours. Can you explain why he refuses to provide evidence for his claims? Certainly I am willing to contemplate any factual statement that has evidence to back it. The idea that "Bill Wexler" is this guy's real name seems wildly implausible every time that "Bill" makes a new, conflicting statement about it. But I do want to encourage him to keep talking - and if I'm repetitive, I have to apologize. He can end the repetition by providing the requested evidence - or by providing some plausible reason why he won't provide the requested evidence.

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (9461)	3/16/2003 5:04:57 PM
From: N. Dixon	Respond to of 10293

Re: The amazing aarrcc by: aarrcc 03/16/03 03:48 pm Msg: 135004 of 135012 <<And no, I'm NOT going to place personal info on a public message board you stupid %#%$, if for no other reason that I don't want to be harrassed night and day by retards like olshmuck.>> At no point did I ask you to place personal info on a public message board - I don't think that would be necessary. Furthermore, I didn't even ask you to reveal your identity to me. I was just wondering why you would keep refusing to do so - given the fact that you claim that you already have done so - and on a public chat board, no less. <<I will provide indisputable evidence of my identity. I will provide indisputable evidence of my trades.>> Kevin seems to think this is difficult to do. (I don't agree.) What sort of indisputable evidence would you provide? And why would you do this in person and not over a fax machine or e-mail? Answer: You wouldn't do it in person. I mean - come on, "Bill," get serious: What plausible explanation is there for your behavior other than that you are lying? <<I also know that you would find me a very reasonable to deal with in person.>> I'm certainly interested in finding out what a reasonable person you are. You claim - with absolutely no evidence - that you are posting under your own name. You claim that you are willing to provide evidence. But you won't do it. Why not? Posted as a reply to: Msg 134994 by billwexler