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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Banned.......Replies to the A@P thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark_H who wrote (1028)	12/20/2004 5:22:50 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 5425

"In latin, which is what it is derived, it is subjugated to -fidant/-dence ..inflicting your connotation as an anomoly at best. Con-vict, subjagating it to -vict, or AGAINST / VICTIM is the proper deriviation.", To:Markas who wrote (8522) From: Pugs Friday, Oct 24, 1997 6:21 PM View Replies (3) \| Respond to of 55353 Markas, your definition is wrought with fault. The prefix 'con' = 'against' by DEFINITION it is the antithesis of what you state. In latin, which is what it is derived, it is subjugated to -fidant/-dence ..inflicting your connotation as an anomoly at best. Con-vict, subjagating it to -vict, or AGAINST / VICTIM is the proper deriviation. I would suggest you are Short on RMIL, are here to discredit Riley, and in truth , only discredit yourself w/ your silly definitions. The french have assimilated 'con' -ard, tu piges?, Pugs Message 2543833