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: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (1864)	1/10/2005 11:36:40 AM
From: Louie_al-Arouri	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5425

Jeff, you're such a con-artist. Isn't it funny you didn't choose the quote I was actually refering too? Message 20857826 What amazes me is that in one corner you have the US government and the 9-11 Commission. In the opposite corner you have people like Hopsicker who think the Saudis were the masterminds and Washington is trying to cover it up.... - Jeff You are truely a work-of-art. Do you even realize , before you do this feeble damage control, the actual quotes of yours are still archived for anyone to access? At least you're attempting to distance yourself from you're FLAWED CLAIMS. ------------- My one-off comment on Hopsicker was designed to show how Hopsicker and Ruppert, two alleged 9-11 researchers -- embroiled in a lawsuit against each other -- had differing and argumentative views as regards who was responsible, as detailed at signs-of-the-times.org. For example: There are a number of things that make us very suspicious of Hopsicker. Firstly, he is promoting, albeit subtly, the Saudi Arabia 9/11 connection, which Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation, also exposed when he said:... If Dobry takes issue with how I summarized their differences and the subject of their lawsuit, and wishes to set the record straight, go for it. Frankly, I'm more interested in what the 9-11 Commission wrote. - Jeff

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (1864)	1/10/2005 11:37:35 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

Yeah, your response was obviously along the lines of "A seems to say firetrucks are red, whilst B seems to say firetrucks are yellow". I had hoped Pugs could put together something better than "Prove that firetrucks aren't apples!!!! ROFL!!!!!" but, I had ... apparently unreasonable expectations.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (1864)	1/10/2005 1:41:44 PM
From: Louie_al-Arouri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

Not that it matters - its clear that you just make it up as you go and the webfraud3 will post something stupid to get attention off your whacked-out claims, but, FYI... there is NO LAWSUIT between Dan & Ruppert. What do you get out of making something like that up? Maybe you're thinking of that email you sent to one of Dan's rersearchers. You threatened suing her, remember? (I have copy of your email if you need to have your memory refreshed). It's funny. Every post you post has a "FLAW" in it, but it never stops you from topping yourself with another fictional follow-up. My one-off comment on Hopsicker was designed to show how Hopsicker and Ruppert, two alleged 9-11 researchers -- embroiled in a lawsuit against each other -- had differing and argumentative views as regards who was responsible, as detailed at signs-of-the-times.org;