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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : NP Energy Cp New -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (19066)	6/6/1999 7:30:00 AM
From: JLIHAI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22810

Interesting stuff on that minimum trade rule.. Thanks for posting it. JL

To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (19066)	6/6/1999 8:36:00 AM
From: Colin Cody	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22810

Now I am more confused than ever. If I read you correctly, you now claim it was you who was the party involved in the 108 trades. I must admit I was suspicious when you bragged here about 100,000 trades ad infinitum, that this kind of illegal behavior was involved and I thank you for being so honest at this time to admit you past mistake. What I am confused about is this case was provided to me with the other one about a default after a fair arbitration hearing, a hearing that I understand a Amr Ibrahim entered agreeing to abide by whatever decision was rendered. This same name, as provided to me, seems to indicate that this party is associated with both the cases. The one you surprisingly have taken full responsibility for and the one you claim has nothing at all to do with you personally, but of which you are extremely familiar with, even to the point of having deep personal intimate knowledge of the wrongful party's future intentions. Please explain. Frankly I am a bit surprised you know so much about either of these arbitration cases, let alone seemingly take responsibility as the party involved. Any idea how NASD seemingly has Anthony and Arm confused as being one and the same person? This is good to clear the air, but frankly I wish you'd stick to the A@P thread, as when I come to the NPEC thread I want to read discussion about that stock, not your personal affairs.

To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (19066)	6/6/1999 10:25:00 AM
From: Handshake™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22810

Thank you Tony, for clearing the air so to speak....I would be interested to know what were the events surrounding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Would like to know if there was a Vancouver connection, etc. Actually find all of this very interesting, I too am not a strong "Good 'Ol Boyz Club" advocate and in my lit'l ol humble opinion it adds credence to the fact that their does exists some wrong doing by the brokerage houses / market makers with Medinah's stock and possibly NPEC's. The volume on NPEC is suspect on NP and could be the trail to some shorting, but defintely on Medinah...