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 : Brokerage-Chat Site Securities Fraud: A Lawsuit -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CountofMoneyCristo who wrote (1511)	7/10/2003 9:01:39 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 3143

First you blasted me for all-talk-and-no-action, now you tell me maybe I don't have any evidence for what I say. Incorrect. Your reaction when someone suggested that it was a bad idea for people on SI to send their personal information to you directly, instead of to the supposed attorney that was handling the class action indicated that you really don't understand the ramifications of your actions. You attacked this person and suggested that she was part of the League of Count's enemies. I agreed with the person that it was a bad idea for people to send their personal information directly to you. You interpreted this as an attack as well. Your seeming willingness to assume that anyone who recognizes the sloppiness in your approach is part of the evil conspiracy against you, makes you look a tad bit paranoid and more importantly, not very objective. You've been at this three years and you don't even know the gender of one of the people who was intimate in the scam, who you hint that you are going to name in the legal action???? C'mon!!! How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you haven't done the least bit of due diligence? And then there are the inconsistencies in the way you apply the rules. You made it very clear that anyone who had every used more than one alias on message boards would be allowed in your class action. But when pressed, you admitted that you had operated with more than one alias. But apparently the rules don't apply to you. So here's a question for you. You say you lost $10M because of the bad advice that you paid for. Was it a net loss? Did your account balance actually drop $10M, or did you trade enough that you generated $10M in losses, but some percentage of those losses were offset by gains? As far as the blame for the losses based on bad advice, I use the Mrs. McKie rule. The Mrs. McKie rule is simple. Would Mrs. McKie give me a pass for the losses or would I bear full responsibility in her eyes. Mrs. McKie wouldn't give a rat's ass if I paid $1000 a day for advice, if I continued to follow that bad advice, it isn't anybody's fault but mine. Three issues that I have with your approach are: 1. You do not take personal responsibility for your actions 2. You are very sloppy in how you attack those who you perceive have harmed you. 3. You get defensive when you perceive that anyone questions your methods or motives.