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: Louie_al-Arouri who wrote (1200)	12/23/2004 9:28:24 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Respond to of 5425

Nice try, Pugs, but: "both lucky_girl's post and my cut & paste of the actual statute clearly state we were addressing 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)." ... you can make all the Big Ol' Copy 'n Pastes you want, but Terrorism still isn't on the charge sheet. That's what's in court, here in the real world. You could Copy 'n Paste the whole Federal Statute for search & seizure, trademark violation and the Social Security Act and still ... Terrorism isn't on the charge sheet in court, here in the real world. So, whilst your attempt to look important through obsfucation is cute, it doesn't actually provide any substance. You should also note that over the course of seven years, I've provided similar cites myself to you addressing your erroneous understanding of law. The difference is, when I've posted those to you, they were actually relevant to the topic at hand. So, grasshopper, we'll have no more of your "can't perform diligence" nonsense, thank you.

To: Louie_al-Arouri who wrote (1200)	12/23/2004 9:47:23 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

I should ask, Pugs, do you think it makes you look more authoritative by piling on more paragraphs in a citation than actually meet the subject material? For example, your inclusion (and self-important bolding <g>) of 4(b)-4(f) simply talk about circumstances of renewal of investigation. What, in your mind, is the relevance of that to the actual docket? For that matter, perhaps you can explain to us, your understanding in your own words, how 3(a)(i-iv) apply to the current docket? I'll give a hint: parameters of scope don't spell t-e-r-r-o-r-i-s-m on the docket. It's obvious you can click a mouse, but it seems only your cursor, rather than your comprehension skill, is picking up anything. Why don't you explain to us what that mass quantity of verbiage actually means. I think we'd all appreciate hearing your perspective on your mastery of the topic. You did, after all, copy 'n paste it, so surely you can understand and articulate what it means, eh?