RE: Slip uprocksolid47,
You seem to think I have some responsibility to discuss the lawsuit on this forum. Yet in one post you were telling me, if you were my lawyer, you'd advise against me posting. Are you contradicting yourself, again? Personally, I feel no obligation to do discuss something because you feel I should, or to respond to your posts in any way. You failed to respond to my request to expand on the allegations you made. However, as I invited you to expand on your allegations, I will go this far.
You ask what I meant by my comments of 7/8/2010. This is what I posted:
rocksolid47,
I thought my predictions on ISM were not the work of someone that was dumb. But you are entitled to your opinion. I understand it was your opinion that ISM would be $64 some time ago. Its 23 cents today. You seem unqualified to be calling someone dumb for predicting where this stock was really headed.
My reason for being back in the open as you call it is not really to discuss the ISM share price. I am just interested in seeing if you would drop over to this forum to discuss some allegations you made. It was brought to my attention that you made some serious claims about me. I believe among other things, fraud, manipulation and breach of ethics were mentioned. It looks like I'll have nothing further to do with the lawsuit that fizzled. I thought I could spend some time moving matters like this along. Please feel free to expand on these allegations you have made. I would be more than willing to discuss them on the forum. As you have admitted I am known publicly. I thought you might be brave enough to discuss this on a public forum where I could challenge your allegations in public. You will have your anonymity for the time being so I hope you would have the guts so repeat some of the things you were saying when I did not have the time to reply. Please pass on to your e-mail friend that uses your aliases that he is welcome to join in the discussions as his hand was involved in some of the allegations. Oh that aattzz man might want to discuss some copies of posts that he made too. The posts are not on StockHouse any longer but I have copies if he needs to refresh his memory.
Will be in touch. Good luck with ISM. I sure would not want to see you lose all your money in the stock market.
You ask what I meant by a comment. I believe the comments require no further explanation. What part do you not understand?
You ask was the lawsuit against me? Was I included in the lawsuit brought by ISM against a certain 4 individuals? I find this to be a very unusual question considering your past comments on my involvement, as well as statements that "everyone" knows who I am, and that you were making a point of informing people of my involvement, and who I am. Why are you asking me questions that you have already answered yourself?
Now I repeat, you claimed I committed fraud, security violations, and breach of ethics. You admit that I am publicly known. You are also aware that a chat room pseudonym cannot commit fraud, violate security regulations or breach ethics. You were clearly making these allegations against a person, identifiable by you and the public. As I said before, I thought you might be brave enough to discuss this on a public forum where I could challenge your allegations in public. You will have your anonymity for the time being so I hope you would have the guts so repeat some of the things you were saying when I did not have the time to reply.
Now to a comment you made today, in response to Nickel77's comment on your access to inside information. You state that I was aware of the information in question. That is a lie, I became aware of the information only after Nickel77 exposed your blunder. My take on the incident is you were caught red-handed, revealing information available only to a very limited number of people. Those LBE people aware of the discussions certainly did not include a disgruntled former LBE person. You telegraphed your guilt, and your embarrassment, when you immediately quit posting for an extended period of time. My understanding is that those involved in the discussions you referred to were geologist types - seeing that ISM does not now engage any of the geologists of that time, your story may not be as protected as was once the case. In plain language, something might just come back to nip you on your lying arse.