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.

Non-Tech : SLJB - Sulja Brothers Building Supply, Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Buckey who wrote (896)	11/30/2006 5:23:11 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1681

I think she sounds honest also. But there is a lot missing and, you are also right in that it appears to have very little relevance to SLJB. As far as judging someone on looks and just saying someone is a scammer, "because he is," that's your opinion, but I don't think that's sufficient to really bash, do you? You wouldn't want serious charges raised against you, because of your looks in a picture. I haven't seen your picture and I'm not claiming you're not gorgeous, but if we follow your line of thought, well~~~~~~ It may lead to a new group of handsome or beautiful CEO's that can scam in the future. LOL

To: Buckey who wrote (896)	11/30/2006 5:23:48 PM
From: Done, gone.	Respond to of 1681

couldnt resist one little bash You're banned, clown! Oh wait, that's what happens on the other SLJB thread, not here. Nevermind. (g) I think she is telling the truth Agree. Also agree with rrufff that she really, really should prepare EXACTLY what it is she wants to say, before saying it. I mean, really! Way too important not to and as is, it leads to confusion, not clarity.

To: Buckey who wrote (896)	11/30/2006 5:25:25 PM
From: scion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1681

Cameila made it quite clear in one of her posts- There is a big distinction between Canadian and US law. In Canada we have certified cheques and bank drafts. In legal transactions there is an obligation to receive funds into the trust in this form. In this case because the payor and I banked at the same institution, they "cleared" the cheque which in essence means removing the funds from the payor's account and placing it into the payee's account. Had we been at different banks, the cheque would have been certified or made into a draft and then taken to the next bank for deposit. I am advised that had that been the case the bank would have had to absorb the loss. Technically, the bank because it was able to do so made me the loss bearer.