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.

Pastimes : Georgia Bard's Corner -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ga Bard who wrote (4352)	7/28/1998 1:14:00 AM
From: musicguy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9440

Someday your sentence structure will catch up with what you are trying to actually say, and you will be amazing. Until them you often sound like a dunce. try to use shorter sentences. try to read tthis sentence: "If someone posts about a front running scheme and they themselves are or were a part of the front running which can be proved because they got the PMs to prove the front running as one of the click that front running requires are they not by the possession of the PM actually proving to being part of the very thing they are now campaigning against?" that is horrible... no offense MG

To: Ga Bard who wrote (4352)	7/28/1998 1:27:00 AM
From: Binder	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 9440

Is one part of the problem, or part of the solution? Can one be both? It would appear so here. Yes, we have an alleged manipulator exposed, which is overall good for the common interest. However, if we look a little deeper, it would appear that Big Dog is not the only one exposed here. The conclusion I have drawn is that Shoot1st would have had to be a participant in the same thing he is protesting here, or else he never would have received that PM in the first place. Is it possible that he saw the err of his ways, and repented by exposing this scheme? I guess it is possible, but not likely, as if that were the case, he would have exposed ALL of the participants. Was it a personal attack on BigDog? I doubt it. Rather, I think it was to protect the one name that was omitted. Why was one omitted? How could one profess to have the interest of integrity at heart, yet allow the manipulation to continue by not exposing all? It's like saying "I know 6 people who are out to hurt you, but I am only going to tell you who 5 of them are." The nobility of exposing something harmful is tarnished by the selective nature of the exposure. Just my opinion, Binder :-)