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 : PanAmerican BanCorp (PABN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jhild who wrote (37346)	6/1/1999 9:21:00 PM
From: wlcnyc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 43774

"You saw it as who knows what kind of statement about the owners. Quite an assumption on your part! I merely asked a question to discern what a "public record" is. I had NO thoughts about any statement about the owners. Keep your words in your own mouth and thoughts in your own head. If your must express them, make sure you don't attribute them to me or anyone else! I noticed that you did not mention PABN or First States in your post. Do you know for a fact that this piece of property is linked to them? Or, are you relying upon the reader to assume that it is - based on a previous post. Playing it safe, huh? Kinda non-committal about this posting of a public record aren't you. "That says to me old house, small lot." Now you are hearing things. LOL It indicates to me an old structure on a relatively small parcel of land. Didn't hear the whispers of "house" but your assumption may or may not be correct. Bill

To: jhild who wrote (37346)	6/2/1999 10:19:00 PM
From: wlcnyc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 43774

I was going to just let you get away with your attempt to distract, but after reading your posts since, I decided to try one more time to allow you to see yourself as others see you... Do you see an image when you stand in front of a mirror or just a bunch of words. You managed to avoid a direct answer to my question yesterday. It all started when you said: ""...but public records can never be invasion of privacy by definition. "" Then I asked: "Would you consider a published telephone number a "public record?"" Message 9894000 You responded: "The difference here is that I posted the owners of record of one of the offices of PABN/PRwt/FirstStates.......blah, blah, blah..." Huh? A public record is a public record only when posted? And it depends upon the intent behind said post? Then there was all the blah, blah, blah about my and Isoman's ethical values followed by..... "Not to mention a shallow attempt to distract the discussion and divert attention." Oh, and what was all that blah, blah, blah if not to distract and divert one's attention from the fact that you said that public records can never be invasion of privacy by definition. Then you respond by implying that, in fact, the posting of public records CAN be an invasion of privacy. Was your first statement not one of fact or is it a .....er, lie? Was your response a way of weaseling out and distracting and diverting? All the things that you accuse others of doing. Tsk, tsk.... Bill