To: tralfasador who wrote (87907 ) 11/14/2004 11:03:19 AM From: Pluvia Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 122087 tralfasador, you sound like you just pulled you butt off the chair next to breen. you joined si today? this is your first post? hmmmmm.... what's your background and your link to this case? for every honest statement made by elgindy in those logs, you can find at least one lie/exaggeration. for the usat to win the argument you're suggesting here, he'd have to argue - and prove elgindy was credible... maybe it's just us, but the picture of breen fighting to prove elgindy's credibility to win this argument... while elgindy argues he's a big phatt liar... heh... gimmy some popcorn and a barco lounger... having participated in a number of investigations with elgindy we can say without exception we NEVER trusted or relied on a word that came from his "claimed" research unless we personally verified (independent of elgindy), what he was claiming. elgindy's honesty in these and other matters was the ongoing, primary source of conflict between us. we and a few others (bear for example, others that prefer to be unnamed) called elgindy on his bs while others hid in the shadows, frightened of his wrath. too baaaaaaa-d... some, like the kind and gullible petah michaelson seemed to believe elgindy's every word, even now refusing to admit the emperor had no clothes, and refusing to admit elgindy wouldn't hesitate to throw him under the bus if it served his own interests. the savvy traders on his site used it for trade ideas.. and, as with any other trading chatroom, you investigated the ideas before taking risk in a trade. read the disclaimer at the beginning of his site. a complete study of the ap website chatlogs or his posts on si - proves elgindy's history of self inflated BS. taken out of context, it is understandable you might think otherwise, but then... that's the difference between real research and ... what you're doing - eh?