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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Rocky Mountain Int'l (OTC:RMIL former OTC:OVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Just My Opinion who wrote (49194)	7/5/1998 1:37:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

anyone, I am not here to defend Ron or anyone else. As a matter of fact, just like here, on the GRNO thread, I have often had disagreements with him. I coined the term IEI (Irrational Exuberance Index) when posting on the GRNO thread, indeed, to counter some of Ron's more exuberant claims at the time. I do not know Ron personally more than I know you or any other poster here and on the GRNO thread. I have never implied any criminality in the activities of the yays (or nays) on this or any other thread for that matter. GRNO was suspended, now there is a pending suit that "alleges" fraud and I think we should wait until this suit is resolved before we come to lynch defendents. This is our way in this country, and I think it is the right way. RMIL has been suspended for some irregularities as well and I have never accused the yays of criminal or fraudulent activities. I have said (and was met with the same attitude as on the GRNO thread) many time last Autumn that this story may end up very badly, I have also stated that some authorities may construe the organization of stock holders to coordinate their buying and selling as collusion (which on the surface appears to have been the Cartel's goal). In all cases, I always explained rationally my point of view, a rarity on this thread. What I do not understand is why should every argument we might have always lead to personal attacks? (double standards etc.) You are asking why I do not defend who? Riley? One thing I will not do is post a defense of Riley, I will not even respond to his private E-messages to me. He engaged in my character assassination on this thread. He posted a private e-mail (which was directed to a third party not him) of mine in public, which means he'll stop at nothing. With all the very strong disagreements I had with Ron over the last two years, and there were many, these were always respectful disagreements. I have no respect for Riley and thus will not post in his defense. There are enough people to carry on that duty on this thread. This thread's posting happen to be a voluntary activity. There is no duty of responding to any specific post. Yesterday you asked for a response, I did not have to respond, I chose to respond. Of course, for some reason or another you implied that the lack of response would indicate one thing or another. If I do not respond to a post, it simply implies that I may not have a response, or I am not interested in responding, or I do not have the time to respond and a thousand other reasons, all of which differ from what you implied the lack of response migh be. This morning I exchanged few PM with one of this thread posters, he implied I am stupid enough to buy a bridge in Brooklyn. After two or three responses, it became obvious to me that I was engaged in sysiphian labor, and using my constitutional right not to respond, I stoped responding. If you have any problem with this approach, I would not mind hearing it. Zeev

To: Just My Opinion who wrote (49194)	7/5/1998 1:39:00 PM
From: Just My Opinion	Respond to of 55532

If anybody wants to take issue with what I am posting about hypocracy (sp?) & the GRNO issue, please do so in a public forum for all to see. I have referenced all of the pertinent posts concerning the GRNO matter, I believe. People can say whatever they like about RMIL, as far as I am concerned. I will take issue with things posted that I consider important, and will not consider "threats" when I make my replies. Post away, I don't care.

To: Just My Opinion who wrote (49194)	7/5/1998 1:44:00 PM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

Anyone: Something of note as not to be inaccurate. As it stands now I haven't seen any indication that criminal indictments are being sought in this case. So the term criminal is inappropriate in a technical sense, although the actions GNRO are accused of are covered within criminal statutes. This is apparently (only reference is the newspaper article) a civil matter filed by the enforcement bureau of the SEC. This is not to say that the SEC does not view the acts as criminal, but it does indicate that they are not pursuing criminal complaints at this time. Frequently enforcement sections of regulatory agencies opt for the civil venue in the pursuit of many cases as the rules of evidence are more lenient and a favorable disposition more likely. A civil finding of responsibility for the acts requires only a "preponderence of the evidence" as opposed to a criminal finding of guilt which requires "guilt beyond reasonable doubt". The civil case requires only a belief of greater than not that there was culpability. That may be as little as 51% vs 49%. The criminal weight for a finding of guilt requires that there is no reasonable doubt that the person is not guilty. In the case of a trial by jury it would require a unanimous jury for a finding of guilt, while a civil jury may only require a % majority, depending on the jurisdiction. I have only read the article posted, however from that article it can only be said that Ron Reece and the principals of GNRO are being sued by the SEC for noncompliance with regulations. That is not to say that the activities are more or less morally or ethically objectionable, just that it is not a criminal action. We can see no jail sentences from this action. However, fines and other administrative sanctions as requested by the filing agency will be determined by a judge. JMO TG