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: SI Bob who wrote (1707)	7/21/2003 3:25:41 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

You say I now have threatened you via e-mail? I don't think I have. I pointed out that at some point SI may be asked to explain why I, someone bringing issues of fraud out into the open, have been repeatedly suspended, while those convicted of crimes and charged repeatedly by SEC are allowed free rein. I think that is, if perhaps a difficult question, a very fair one. You say it's a privately-owned site. Indeed. However, this same site purports to be a public forum. Therefore, it owes certain duties of fairness and equity to its paying subscribers. Higher ups on Mars? I'd think the Red Planet is a poor choice of analogy. Any local, active volcano would be more fitting.

To: SI Bob who wrote (1707)	7/21/2003 3:30:06 PM
From: Jon Tara	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

Just one thing, Bob, while I've got you in a corner. Why did the Martians want the tractor in the swamp?

To: SI Bob who wrote (1707)	7/21/2003 3:36:36 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3143

I didn't include you in any conspiracy. I asked you a fair question. And if SI has nothing to hide, then I'm sure you would have no problems discussing these issues objectively, anywhere at all. People here have posted that I just go off half-cocked and sue everyone in sight without evidence, yet the record proves otherwise doesn't it? I've been very careful who is named. Now let's review what our friend Mr. Tara said here: Member 4376408 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. Sorry, that sounds like a veiled threat to me. We're talking about the Nasdaq and fraud - not physical violence, so why raise that issue? Then here we go again: siliconinvestor.com 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". You know, when, in the middle of a discussion about statutory fraud, people start talking about "the bad neighborhood," "getting beat up," "dealers," "fences" and "pimps" then I wonder what their objectives are. You find that unreasonable? Like Graystone said, if Mr. Tara views our markets this way, where people get beat up by dealers, fences and pimps, then indeed we are living on two different planets - only on mine the rule of law is enforced.

To: SI Bob who wrote (1707)	7/23/2003 9:23:09 AM
From: benchpress550	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

When you talk to the higher-ups on Mars, please ask them to write a couple of pre approved post for me to use on this thread.