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: lucky_girl who wrote (1180)	12/22/2004 6:01:05 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 5425

"I'm sitting in front of a pile of papers from British Intelligence, its over." ...said Dobry. By: Maytag_Repairs $$$$ 28 Mar 2001, 10:26 AM EST Msg. 103057 of 181225 (This msg. is a reply to 103055 by janice456.) Shell, it's over. I'm sitting in front of a pile of papers from British Intelligence, its over. As far as Sylver, we were lied "to", not "for". I've been telling you for close to 2 yrs we've been talking to the feds & the SEC. I've also worked with other researchers for articles & book I've written/writing on the experience. It's over, and you know it. ragingbull.lycos.com By: Maytag_Repairs $$$$ 28 Mar 2001, 10:48 AM EST Msg. 103059 of 181225 (This msg. is a reply to 103058 by janice456.) Shell, you're in denial. Actually, British Intelligence forwarded it the PI who specializes in corporate espionage. It's over Shell. EOD ragingbull.lycos.com

To: lucky_girl who wrote (1180)	12/22/2004 6:17:52 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Respond to of 5425

Ha! No kidding that the original RICO draft was written with flexibility in mind. Nonetheless, you've demonstrated that you don't understand the "predicate" foundation of that law. And, alluding, as you do, that I'm somehow connected with the case is yet another of your fallacious statements, such as claiming I was a member of Tony's site, or claiming that terrorism is on the charge sheet, or claiming that you possess a Nevada Court doc which you sent to Jeff. None of your above claims is true, of course; a fine testament to your credibility. So, when you call me an "ass", as in your previous post, we can pretty put that in the bin with the rest of your rubbish. See you in the funny papers, kiddo.

To: lucky_girl who wrote (1180)	12/22/2004 6:31:47 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

Oh.. and thanks for copying and pasting the DJ/Remond articles. Your competence in clicking a mouse remains, at least, unquestionable. "Reading", however, seems to be another issue. To wit, from the article: "They, and three others to be tried separately, are charged with securities fraud, market manipulation and extortion." The letter string, t-e-r-r-o-r-i-s-m, doesn't appear in that charge set. So how did you "read" that into the list? Semantics?

To: lucky_girl who wrote (1180)	12/22/2004 9:51:10 PM
From: Tommy Hicks	Respond to of 5425

Lucky, tell me your an Auburn fan and I'll turn on a dime. Convince Dobry that we should be in the Orange Bowl and I'm buying into the Khaled Elgindy story, the eighteen swords, the Golde Gloves championship and he can perform my autopsy anytime. th

To: lucky_girl who wrote (1180)	12/22/2004 11:32:14 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5425

A few minutes ago, after seeing that although I did receive one email from Lucky_Girl I had not received the one with the document, I decided to check my spam folder (where Outlook automatically throws email it thinks is spam). Sure enough, there it was! The only explanation I can think for this is that because it came from an anonymous email box Outlook figured it must be spam. In any event, the document in question was the AZNT complaint against me, Janice, etc. Because it was posted on cybersecuritieslaw.com, which has the standard warning that their material can not be redistributed, she didn't want to cut and paste. And, yes, Lucky, the document was posted on SI long ago. Here's the problem with your approach: It's sort of like someone who is sifting through TV archives and then posts "Oh my, J.R. Ewing has been shot!" as if that were breaking news. To make matters worse, you are posting this information to the equivalent of the actors... on their stage. To use another analogy, it's like going to a party of physicists and saying, hey, cool, I can create a spark when I rub my socks on the carpet; can someone here please help me figure out why because it just may be important. So what you see here are two competing sentiments: 1) Lucky_Girl is clueless and I don't have time to explain things to her because the end result will just be a never-ending series of follow-up questions and who needs that. And 2) Lucky_Girl is just pretending to be clueless as an excuse to waste our time and/or manufacture smoke to give the illusion of fire by bringing up old and discarded information as if it were breaking news. You see, people who post what they consider controversial stuff on public message boards usually don't just appear one day and post up a storm as if the were authorities (e.g. using constructions like "FACT:"). Especially women. But, of course, you could be the exception. You also seem to have chosen to appear here around the same time as "Louie" and post somewhat similar material. Maybe not a smoking gun, but at least a red flag. So, once and for all, what brings you to SI and what personal experience do you have regarding Tony Elgindy? TIA - Jeff