Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You mean... other than the fact that they are being sued by the California Department of Justice for running a scam?
Says the person who tried to dishonestly imply that the OP was an article from the WSJ, and when called on that crap has been furiously backpedaling and deflecting ever since?
Pulleeeeze!!!
That was only one of two options I presented. I note that you are making no effort whatsoever to defend yourself from the other...the one that ends up making you look like an unwitting dupe.
So... you must be conceding that one.
I clearly showed this wasn't true. Yet you persist in lying about it.
The guy supposedly being sued appears to be a spin-off.
I don't need to defend myself from "crazy" accusations from paranoid people.
Had it merely been a lapse, a reasonable person would have come back and said something like, "Ooops. I didn't realize the connection was that tenuous. Sorry."
Instead you repeatedly deny what is on your own post in black and white. It is by all measures a bizarre performance on your part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr
The guy supposedly being sued appears to be a spin-off.
Of what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr
I don't need to defend myself from "crazy" accusations from paranoid people.
Had it merely been a lapse, a reasonable person would have come back and said something like, "Ooops. I didn't realize the connection was that tenuous. Sorry."
Instead you repeatedly deny what is on your own post in black and white. It is by all measures a bizarre performance on your part.
Of what?
And yet....
Ok here is what I said again. Even including the link to the site owned by WSJ. NM, that the original article even included the link and explained what it was. Wow what a devious plan of deception I had. Also another poster also posted the direct link to the PR at the same time.
No, I was Honest and didn't say oops, because I didn't lie about anything. But you seem to have no problem throwing around spurious accusations, which apparently is all you see around you. You are the one insinuating what isn't there and defending it. Pretty sick.
CDusr said:
Had you looked you would see the article has links to wsj. Seriously that's all you can add? MarketWatch.com
That one isn't working, may be a browser issue. (gives an error) However, I did go to the webcivil and you have to register for an acct.
OK, this does look like it will let you in. Had to use IE. Didn't like FF.
That one isn't working, may be a browser issue. (gives an error) However, I did go to the webcivil and you have to register for an acct.
OK, this does look like it will let you in. Had to use IE. Didn't like FF.
Marketwatch is linked to the Wall Street Journal. A press release posted on Marketwatch is not linked to the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal does not endorse any of the products advertised in its print or web media, be it AXE men's cologne or the Spire Law Group. A press release is a de facto advertisement. Therefore, neither Marketwatch, nor the Wall Street Journal endorsed the lawsuit the Spire Law Group is trying to market, and neither Marketwatch, nor the Wall Street Journal makes any assertions as to the credibility or reliability of said lawsuit.
Marketwatch is linked to the Wall Street Journal. A press release posted on Marketwatch is not linked to the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal does not endorse any of the products advertised in its print or web media, be it AXE men's cologne or the Spire Law Group. A press release is a de facto advertisement. Therefore, neither Marketwatch, nor the Wall Street Journal endorsed the lawsuit the Spire Law Group is trying to market, and neither Marketwatch, nor the Wall Street Journal makes any assertions as to the credibility or reliability of said lawsuit.
HD's link worked using IE, after the captcha. When I was there before, there is an acct signup, which I didn't want to do.
Here is the thing. I never claimed endorsement or anything of that nature. I simply gave an alt link on a site, that I thought the drive by might not object to. It is my understanding that MW is owned by WSJ.
In fact, when I posted this I stated, will have to see if there is anything to this. I have no skin in the game either way. Anymore than any other US citizen. I am not defending it. I posted it to have others check into it. That is what makes forums useful.
I do not subscribe to approaches which inhibit people from researching and discussing.
MarketWatch is part of The Wall Street Digital Network, which includes WSJ.com, Barrons.com, AllThingsD.com, BigCharts.com and VirtualStockExchange.com.
You've been spinning the same spin since you first got called on it.
1) The source for the OP was challenged as worthless.
2) You responded by trying to imply that the source was actually the WSJ.
Why do you keep pretending otherwise when your paper trail is there for everyone to see?
For god's sake man. At least show some dignity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
