|
Hello
Nov 5, 2010 16:03:07 GMT -5
Post by seeking on Nov 5, 2010 16:03:07 GMT -5
Bob, you the man, disregard thoes who say otherwise. Now give us some info to carry us through the weekend!!! The less info the better NO ONE knows when, we want silence. Silence is "GOLDEN"!!!
|
|
|
Hello
Nov 5, 2010 16:06:28 GMT -5
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Nov 5, 2010 16:06:28 GMT -5
Warren: A wholly reasonable approach and superbly elucidated (No, I don't really talk this way...) Ed. I don't speak anything like I write. My writing's awfully boorish and pedantic. Don't you find it precisely so, or am I grievously and irrepressibly mistaken, my good and thoughtful chum? Hey! I'm born and raised in da great city of Chicago! Youze know what I mean? And another thing. John, why did you choose O'Boggie? I'm actually Lennon's biggest fan in the world, and he used O'Boogie. Did you purposely mess up the name? ...Warren I was going to fight you on this.. But said... No way.. Your from Chicago and I'm from New York.. This fight would go on long after I ran out of beer.. Besize, your the only one who noticed.. Wall And Bridges baby..
|
|
|
Hello
Nov 5, 2010 16:10:15 GMT -5
Post by Warren_Pease on Nov 5, 2010 16:10:15 GMT -5
LOL John. That you're a Lennon fan is good enough for me.
|
|
|
Hello
Nov 5, 2010 16:10:45 GMT -5
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Nov 5, 2010 16:10:45 GMT -5
One more correction Mr.W........... No one is Lennon's biggest fan in the world.. You may think you are, but that's as far as it goes...
|
|
|
Hello
Nov 5, 2010 16:14:17 GMT -5
Post by Warren_Pease on Nov 5, 2010 16:14:17 GMT -5
I'll concede the point, John. JL would have wanted it that way.
|
|
|
Hello
Nov 5, 2010 16:16:10 GMT -5
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Nov 5, 2010 16:16:10 GMT -5
I'll concede the point, John. JL would have wanted it that way. Your a good person.. Give Peace A Chance... I didn't write that song you know.. It just came out... Just laying in bed with my Dear Yoko...
|
|
|
Hello
Nov 5, 2010 16:17:12 GMT -5
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Nov 5, 2010 16:17:12 GMT -5
I'll concede the point, John. JL would have wanted it that way. Your a good person.. Give Peace A Chance... I didn't write that song you know.. It just came out... Just laying in bed with my Dear Yoko... BTW I was in Canada when it came out.. 1969
|
|
|
Hello
Nov 5, 2010 16:45:55 GMT -5
Post by georgie18 on Nov 5, 2010 16:45:55 GMT -5
Warren, what a well orchestrated response.Kudos to you! There is just one thing I cannot comprehend for the life of me and that is...if you refuse to believe anything about this saga...well then why exactly are you here...why not relax,lay back, have some ice tea..and when some hard , justifiable evidence arises I am sure some one will let you know... OK, Georgie, you asked for it! I want to be brief, but I'm afraid I'll likely lose you not being sufficiently succinct. First, Georgie, those are great observations and questions. I ask myself the same or a version of the same each and every day. One thing that's got me hooked is that I actually invested a lot of money in this thing (This begs the same kind of question, "Why did you do it? Where was your evidence for believing this could be a good investment?" To which I often respond, "I wish I had asked better questions. I'd like to think I'm smarter now."). The size of the investment keeps me tuned in. It's not quite correct to say, as you did, that I don't believe in anything. The complete statement indicates I refuse to put absolute stake in a belief without hard, verifiable evidence to justify it. And with regard to CMKX in particular, I see nothing to justify absolute belief in a payment (faith alone subscribes to absolute belief without need of evidence ... personally, I reject that principle). In any case, I don't see belief in all or none terms. There is very little to be known about anything with absolute certainty (in particular, it seems to me that the basher-card throwers are those most unwilling to confront uncertainty and their own realistic sense of doubt). Rather, my system of belief is based on probability. An assertion is more or less probably true. Evidence for the assertion increases the probability that it is true; absence of evidence increases the probability that it is not true. So, the second hook is my desire for knowledge and evidence to gain something of the truth. At this very late juncture, I've yet to completely rule out the possibility of payment, but the evidence is nearly as thin as the distance between atoms. (With a slightly larger probability that Kevin West's efforts will get us something). There ya go! Warren Warren, thank you so much for your response.You definitely have a great flare. The first lesson I learned when engaging in a conversation is the first line should always be a welcoming one,hence the person that you are conversing with will not feel antagonized or made to feel inferior. My dear Warren your first line to me was "I want to be brief, but I'm afraid I'll likely lose you not being sufficiently succinct." Correct me if I am mistaken but that sounds like you are insulting my intelligence. We will never be friends and develop a common ground that way. By the way Warren is succinct anything like brevity? My dear Warren when you invested a lot of money in this did you have evidence then..what did you base your purchase on...evidence is not always obvious,nor does it always lead to the obvious answer..and it is obvious that if you invested based on evidence than as far as your investment stands today..your research of that evidence was lacking at best. You stated "It's not quite correct to say, as you did, that I don't believe in anything." I NEVER SAID THIS...I QUOTED YOU... "I refuse to believe anything about this saga" that was your statement, not mine.. Now your statement "At this very late juncture, I've yet to completely rule out the possibility of payment" So I am once again confused . You state that you refuse to believe anything about this saga , yet you believe there is a possibility of a payment..isn't that like being a little pregnant..just asking.. This is certainly a unique situation all onto itself, so I would venture to say that due to the nature of this beast we shareholders will never see what Al Hodges sees or any of the behind the scenes people will see and truthfully I do not care. As it relates to this investment the only thing I am searching for is payment to all the shareholders that were put in an uncompromising position by a group that had ulterior motives. My positive attitude about this investment basically surrounds itself with the presence of a man as well versed as Robert Maheu and the willingness of a man like Al Hodges to take this to the Federal Level. I will not elaborate as you can make your own conclusion. Warren I wish you the best with this and all your investments and I sincerely hope that my reply was sufficiently succinct..
|
|
|
Hello
Nov 5, 2010 17:19:27 GMT -5
Post by Warren_Pease on Nov 5, 2010 17:19:27 GMT -5
My dear Warren your first line to me was "I want to be brief, but I'm afraid I'll likely lose you not being sufficiently succinct." Correct me if I am mistaken but that sounds like you are insulting my intelligence. So I am once again confused . You state that you refuse to believe anything about this saga , yet you believe there is a possibility of a payment. Georgie, I think it would be best to carry this forward as a private message. It's too cumbersome to sustain in this format. Nonetheless, I'd like to address the two things I've highlighted from your post. With regard to the first point you make, I issued that statement about "losing you" as an apology. It wasn't that I thought you'd not be able to follow (the argument was quite simple really); instead, I thought you'd find me tiresome. I was berating my own tendency toward windbaggery. With regard to the second point, I'm afraid I still haven't been able to make myself clear to you. You have not quoted me correctly. You left out a sizeable portion of the sentence outlining my thought on the matter. Were you to do include the whole of it, I think it would attenuate your confusion. Here again is the COMPLETE sentence: "As for me, I refuse to believe anything about this saga without hard, verifiable evidence to justify the belief."Do you see now? If you truncate the sentence as you did ("I refuse to believe anything about this saga"), you dismiss the heart of the matter. My belief in something is contingent on the evidence to justify it. If you wish to go on with this, please let's continue privately. ...Warren
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Hello
Nov 5, 2010 17:19:49 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2010 17:19:49 GMT -5
Construction.
It's a simple word that conveys a transformation from one state to another, usually of a higher order.
I think I'm quite safe in assuming that if Mr Hodges hadn't made public his work on the Bivens suit, less than 25% of the people currently reading this wouldn't be here...because this time last years the majority of us believed this thing was over. Indeed, it hardly makes sense for a person who didn't believe payment was coming to hang out here, unless there's another reason...
Assuming this assumption valid, it follows that more than 75% of us are hanging on because we have some degree of expectation that something significant is coming to us. This expectation may be a flicker, or it may be a steady flame...but it is the commonality that binds us.
Mr Hodges has brought into his work Bob and six other similarly situated plaintiffs, pulled from the common pool of shareholders. They are closest to the action that Mr Hodges is working on, and are therefore in a position to have access to information that other shareholders do not.
Experience has taught us that Mr Hodges has believed we were close pretty much the entire time since the Bivens action went public...it has taught us there have been numerous unexpected barriers erected along the way as well.
The plaintiffs have been praised for their courage by Mr Hodges in several updates...courage is only necessary in the face of something that is not safe, routine, or ordinary.
Where is this going? Construction.
We're here because we believe Mr Hodges, even if just a little. We have plaintiffs who hear from Mr Hodges, and they relay information back to the shareholding community at large. They do so at some degree of personal risk.
So when I hear someone is digging up personal information of a plaintiff, I think stalker.
When I hear someone threatening a plaintiff or a plaintiff's family, I think of someone who is far less than a "represent(ing) only what (they) personally believe", and far more of someone who is either criminal, insane, or both.
Is it normal for a person who believes in a pending CMKX payment to stalk, threaten, or otherwise run down a fellow shareholder/plaintiff? Does the behavior subscribe to the principles of decency, fair conduct, and respect most CMKX boards seek to engender?
If not, why is this behavior tolerated? More importantly, why are the posters who exhibit these behaviors tolerated?
Were it my vote, I'd send such offenders back to the skunk boards from which they spawn. To me it's obvious it's not a fellow shareholder we're dealing with, but one of the elements Mr Hodges alluded to when praising plaintiff courage.
It goes back to construction....why would a person be here if they didn't believe Mr Hodges, unless they are mentally infirm or someone who seeks to benefit from a demoralized shareholder base?
Just thinking out loud- C-Dub
|
|
|
Hello
Nov 5, 2010 17:22:11 GMT -5
Post by rspence000 Wet Blanket on Nov 5, 2010 17:22:11 GMT -5
This thread is a Joke! What happened to t's crossed and I's dotted?
|
|
|
Hello
Nov 5, 2010 17:38:44 GMT -5
Post by georgie18 on Nov 5, 2010 17:38:44 GMT -5
My dear Warren your first line to me was "I want to be brief, but I'm afraid I'll likely lose you not being sufficiently succinct." Correct me if I am mistaken but that sounds like you are insulting my intelligence. So I am once again confused . You state that you refuse to believe anything about this saga , yet you believe there is a possibility of a payment. Georgie, I think it would be best to carry this forward as a private message. It's too cumbersome to sustain in this format. Nonetheless, I'd like to address the two things I've highlighted from your post. With regard to the first point you make, I issued that statement about "losing you" as an apology. It wasn't that I thought you'd not be able to follow (the argument was quite simple really); instead, I thought you'd find me tiresome. I was berating my own tendency toward windbaggery. With regard to the second point, I'm afraid I still haven't been able to make myself clear to you. You have not quoted me correctly. You left out a sizeable portion of the sentence outlining my thought on the matter. Were you to do include the whole of it, I think it would attenuate your confusion. Here again is the COMPLETE sentence: "As for me, I refuse to believe anything about this saga without hard, verifiable evidence to justify the belief."Do you see now? If you truncate the sentence as you did ("I refuse to believe anything about this saga"), you dismiss the heart of the matter. My belief in something is contingent on the evidence to justify it. If you wish to go on with this, please let's continue privately. ...Warren Not necessary ...You have a great night...
|
|
|
Hello
Nov 5, 2010 17:48:37 GMT -5
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Nov 5, 2010 17:48:37 GMT -5
Georgie, I think it would be best to carry this forward as a private message. It's too cumbersome to sustain in this format. Nonetheless, I'd like to address the two things I've highlighted from your post. With regard to the first point you make, I issued that statement about "losing you" as an apology. It wasn't that I thought you'd not be able to follow (the argument was quite simple really); instead, I thought you'd find me tiresome. I was berating my own tendency toward windbaggery. With regard to the second point, I'm afraid I still haven't been able to make myself clear to you. You have not quoted me correctly. You left out a sizeable portion of the sentence outlining my thought on the matter. Were you to do include the whole of it, I think it would attenuate your confusion. Here again is the COMPLETE sentence: "As for me, I refuse to believe anything about this saga without hard, verifiable evidence to justify the belief."Do you see now? If you truncate the sentence as you did ("I refuse to believe anything about this saga"), you dismiss the heart of the matter. My belief in something is contingent on the evidence to justify it. If you wish to go on with this, please let's continue privately. ...Warren Not necessary ...You have a great night... Where you going..? The night is young.. Oh that's right, your old... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Hello
Nov 5, 2010 18:27:00 GMT -5
Post by gusjarvis on Nov 5, 2010 18:27:00 GMT -5
bob thanks, it has been a war, an ugly ugly war, and still is right to this minute as seen by this thread alone. I can handle the heat, and I know you can.
I hope the last moment is here and this was my last day of work, hope the journey is over, it should be and there should be no more ups and downs for the beaten up shareholders, just ups from here on out. Hope we don't have to listen to any more posts on a stock board ever again.
Cheers
|
|
|
Hello
Nov 5, 2010 18:49:09 GMT -5
Post by whynot on Nov 5, 2010 18:49:09 GMT -5
Bob please stop your service of the go between It serves No Purpose other then upsetting sh. holders and causing more friction with no quick ending to this ongoing nightmare. Thank you.
|
|