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 : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockalot who wrote (23689)	8/15/2006 5:46:43 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

"As you know the person you are defending was not forthcoming at all on the other site." Wrong, I don't know that. What I do know is that when the Queenofquibble and Queen97000 screen names showed up there, she openly acknowledged that they were both hers. "And indeed you are the one who came up with the family member first." I corrected you on that before, and now here you are lying about it again. The rest of your post is just the same old speculation presented as fact, i.e., lying.

To: stockalot who wrote (23689)	8/15/2006 7:59:05 PM
From: queenleah	Respond to of 42834

Stockalot said: Way to spin Math. As you know the person you are defending was not forthcoming at all on the other site. And indeed you are the one who came up with the family member first. Untrue At first she was shocked, shocked that she was banished and pretended not to have a clue. Untrue Then when it was obvious that the person who posted just like she did was banished too (not that she admitted it but others pointed it out) she came up with that crock about "someone in a different department in the business was a member of SI and ......" . Another crock. Untrue--that it's a crock, that is. She was in denial about the Peanut_butter alias until you said it was obvious. Untrue Then only after you came up with the "family member" alibi did she adapt to that one. Untrue sHE WAS CAUGHT posting as peanut_butter and queen9700. She and you have been making excuses ever since and none of them change the facts. Untrue. Stockalot, YOU apparently consider yourself, judge, jury, and prosecutor, so YOU come up with the "evidence" that you think "prove" your charges against me to be anything other than your malicious opinion and your malicious perception of something that need not concern you at all. YOU are also the one who saves posts for decades on end, so YOU are making the charges, you provide the evidence in this ongoing multisite malicious stalking vendetta of yours. Hint: it won't all be on this site, due to your multi-site stalking of me. I wonder why you do that? Do I bother you that much? Why? Remember when you decided all on your own "omniscience" and on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, that I was a boozer and had a sports gambling problem? Wonder why you decided to give up on that one. And when you decided all on your own that I was suddenly Bob Brinker and a host of others? You manufactured that all on your own. And when I was Mark or Butter and a host of others? All untrue. And BTW, I don't know what a "sHE" is but you sure seem to enjoy that one. What I wonder is why the site administrators put up with your ongoing off-topic vendetta, because if you weren't so preoccupied with me 24/7 and with your animosity toward me personally, I wouldn't be responding.

To: stockalot who wrote (23689)	8/15/2006 8:11:49 PM
From: dijaexyahoo	Respond to of 42834

stockalot,here is yet another question that you won't answer: Why do you get in such a tizzy over queen's alleged multi-aliases on Yahoo, but never say a word about kirk doing the exact same thing?