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.

Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nayson Khoshnood who wrote (14404)	11/16/1997 4:21:00 AM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

Nayson, the split of the S&P 500 futures contract was effective November 2nd, which was two weeks ago (not three weeks ago). See: cme.com I do not follow Tom's index and future trades, but perhaps he entered his position prior to the split and was just referring to the value per point in terms of the original position he entered. I hope your post does not open up a new round of acrimony. This thread should move on to discuss more important issues.

To: Nayson Khoshnood who wrote (14404)	11/16/1997 8:48:00 AM
From: donald sew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

Nayson, I now have to comment, and if you want to question my integrity go ahead and start. Firstly, Tom's comments were directed to specific issues toward IKE, and they were logical. Yes, it did get heated to higher levels, but it was done mutually by both parties. Your attact on Tom, an extremely aggressive one, is totally uncalled for. Granted the exchanges between IKE and TT got heated, but you have now taken this to another degree far beyond the elevation IKE and TT brought it to, since you are now basicly calling TT a liar. Of course you did not use those exact words; however it is strongly implied in your post. I do not know why you are doing this, since it does not even help IKE. It is giving more and more the feeling that IKE's following is cult-like, which is one of the reasons I originally left this thread. If now you feel I am defending Tom, you are wrong; in fact if you read my last post I was actually a bit bothered that Tom pulled my name into this and I had to correct some of his comments; although I did agree with some of his positions. I looked at your attack on Tom, similar to that in court hearings where the accusor's integrity is being attacked in order to defend the defendant with the useage of subterfuge. Is that your intent?? I hope not. This thread does not need IKE and TT to continue this arguement, and it sure does not need those to esculate matters, as what you did with your attack on TOM. I will vouch for Tom's integrity. I originally left this thread quietly since I did not want to harm the integrity since I still respected IKE for his unselfishnish and knowledge he was sharing, but did not care for his presentation. As I indicated in my post to TOM, anyone who's position in the market is as animated as IKE's will be strongly scrutinized when things go wrong, but also highly praised when things go right. That's normal Additionally, I am not an expert in the futures, but your comment may not be totally correct. I am checking into it. Now if you want to pull me into it since I am vouching for Toms's integrity, be my guess but be warned that alot of dirt will come out of it, whereby I will be able to site specific posts to substantiate my position which IKE would not be able to deny.