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.
Here is the thing. I never claimed endorsement or anything of that nature.
And yet here you are all these posts later, even after the lawyer involved has been exposed as an indicted scammer and the demonstration has been made that no case has actually been filed... trying to defend the thread.
You have this unattractive habit of trying to imply things that you then explicitly deny. What accounts for that very odd behavior?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr
I do not subscribe to approaches which inhibit people from researching and discussing.
That would be more compelling if you showed any genuine capacity for being able to research or discuss. Instead, we have to do it all for you.
Eventually though, time comes to draw conclusions. Because it's one thing to have an open mind, but another thing entirely to let your brains fall out on the floor.
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.
I don't subscribe to approaches which inhibit people from researching and discussing.
I also don't try to lend the Wall Street Journal's credibility to a press release by a lawfirm that is being investigated for fraud.
When you introduced the Wall Street Journal into this thread, that's exactly what you were trying to do, attach the credibility of the WSJ to the press release. And that's what you were called out on.
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.
Should take your own advice.
The op complained about the site, challenging that as worthless is totally subjective and irrelevant. It is linked to a site owned by WSJ.
Yes, my trail is there. I am the one repeating it verbatim for all to see. What I said was quoted twice by me. Your accusations are ridiculous, based on the evidence.
You seem to be spinning. One minute somebody is a dupe, another a liar. Another they are an unwitting scam participator and another on the payroll. One minute defending another not.
You even ridicule your own grammatical errors when quoted to you, thinking they are someone else. Then deny they are yours, dismissing them as nothing when forced to claim them.
Such confusion. Quite the paranoid imagination, as well. Seriously, you seem to have a bi-polar take on 'reality".
Be nice if you could be respectful and issue oriented.
Jesus... I simply cannot believe you are still going on about this....
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr
You seem to be spinning. One minute somebody is a dupe, another a liar. Another they are an unwitting scam participator and another on the payroll. One minute defending another not.
None of those are mutually exclusive. But you have been given multiple opportunities to narrow that list of options. You have denied only one of them, and continue to demonstrate evidence that supports the other two.
I don't subscribe to approaches which inhibit people from researching and discussing.
I also don't try to lend the Wall Street Journal's credibility to a press release by a lawfirm that is being investigated for fraud.
When you introduced the Wall Street Journal into this thread, that's exactly what you were trying to do, attach the credibility of the WSJ to the press release. And that's what you were called out on.
Including the links and quoting what was said doesn't imply credibility. I think that is quite a stretch to say I am trying to lend WSJ credibility to a law firm being investigated for fraud.
The article states the links belong to a WSJ owned site. And indeed it is. The article states it is a PR. I never claimed otherwise and in fact, included the links.
This sounds like a first grade argument. You really think I implied some WSJ journal endorsement? Simply, a more palatable site. The WSJ could have discussed the so-called fraud claims? No such claims were made. I cannot believe any adult would buy that.
My whole ruse was held together by me praying no one would click on the links I provided? What a plan.
Jesus... I simply cannot believe you are still going on about this....
None of those are mutually exclusive. But you have been given multiple opportunities to narrow that list of options. You have denied only one of them, and continue to demonstrate evidence that supports the other two.
In your world there seem to be 2 options, to your accusations. You also seem to decide which of the 2 options it is.
First not sure what you are referring to regarding belief, secondly now you speak for everybody? Interesting.
I'm speaking for everybody who has to this point rendered an opinion.
Have you not been reading your own thread?
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.
