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: Jon Tara who wrote (1660)	7/18/2003 1:12:53 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

I didn't excuse the crime of violence. But neither do I excuse the crime of stupidity. If somebody goes into the bad part of town, repeatedly, looking for trouble (maybe drugs, maybe stolen goods, maybe prostitution, etc.) and the dealer, fence, or pimp beats them up - well, the dealer, fence, or pimp ought to be arrested and pay the price. Did I say that they shouldn't? But don't ask me to sob for the "victim". Oh no? What you said: Message 19121032 I will readily admit that I have a bias against those who will not take responsibility for their own actions. Yes, even if they have a crime committed against them. Somebody goes into the bad part of town, repeatedly, looking for trouble, and they get beat up - I have no sympathy for them. You're a depraved individual. You're not excusing crimes of violence? No? You're merely saying you have no sympathy if someone goes into the bad part of town and gets beat up. Doesn't seem like there's any difference to me. You use words like "dealer," "fence," "pimp." I hope you're not referring to the defendants in that analogy, though all indications are that this is your intention. So, then I imagine the NASDAQ is the "bad neighborhood" and the brokers, licensed NASD members, are drug-dealers, fences and pimps? Is that what you're saying? If it is, and if the defense ever tries to make this kind of caveat emptor argument, they'll have some explaining to do why they think it's OK for them to violate numerous laws just because they have brokerage licenses. You know, I do think that they indeed do think they are entitled to break the laws. And I quote: Gerald Putnam, founder and CEO of Terra Nova: Message 6576577 The real problem is with the rule makers. They are not applying the rules evenly. There is this notion that day traders are bad that keeps these guys actively looking at day trading rules. I understand that we may get some relief through another rule change that level the playing field again. I am on this stuff on almost a daily basis. The rules are not fair.

To: Jon Tara who wrote (1660)	7/18/2003 9:13:47 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

I didn't excuse the crime of violence. But neither do I excuse the crime of stupidity. So you equate crimes of violence with those who are either uninformed or not as intelligent as you or others? "The crime of stupidity." I don't recall being "stupid" as a crime. But, I am sure the defendants think so, and are happy to take advantage. Like I said, you are one sick, sick puppy. You go ahead and blast me to kingdom come, but the defendants have a slight problem: destroying my credibility won't help them all that much, since they targeted and wiped out c. 10,000 other innocent citizens. Let's see if they can succeed in character assassination of every last one of them...

To: Jon Tara who wrote (1660)	7/22/2003 11:14:02 AM
From: Yogizuna	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

>>> If somebody goes into the bad part of town, repeatedly, looking for trouble (maybe drugs, maybe stolen goods, maybe prostitution, etc.) and the dealer, fence, or pimp beats them up - well, the dealer, fence, or pimp ought to be arrested and pay the price. Did I say that they shouldn't? But don't ask me to sob for the "victim". <<< You are assuming the Count was "looking for trouble" by paying for a service. Bad assumption in my opinion.