% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

FRX Message Board

vanlosian 4 posts  |  Last Activity: Mar 24, 2016 4:40 PM Member since: Mar 5, 2013
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to


    by polgringo Mar 22, 2016 10:59 AM
    vanlosian vanlosian Mar 24, 2016 4:40 PM Flag

    "I'm obviously not to going to leave factually inaccurate or misleading information included in one of my posts up without correction. "

    Your whole post is a pile of disingenuous krapola. You made a ridiculous mistake, one that was so stupid as to open you up to ridicule. When I suggested you check your facts, you decided to erase all evidence of the stupid mistake, instead of doing what most people would do. Most people would just acknowledge and correct the error in a follow-up post, or a reply to their own original post.

    At the very least you should have disclosed that your post was an edited version of your original post. But you chose the deceitful alternative - a completely new post with the error removed, and no mention of the previous post (and in the process had my post deleted (as well as someone else's reply to your post)).

    You don't have the right to remove others' posts - and it's bad enough that you wanted to save yourself some embarrassment, but you have now shown yourself to be duplicitous, too. I wonder how many other posts you have removed. Have you similarly removed those other posts where you made the same, stupid mistake? I saw you make it a couple of times myself, before I even bothered to comment on it in this thread. I bet they're gone, too. What a piece work, lol.

    No self-righteousness here. Just someone who believes in honest, truthful engagement. You fail in that regard.

  • Reply to


    by polgringo Mar 22, 2016 10:59 AM
    vanlosian vanlosian Mar 22, 2016 7:57 PM Flag

    Wow. What a dishonest broker of information you are.

    I'll give you the opportunity to admit what you did today. before I tell the group.

    Let's see if you have a conscience, or if you can tell the truth.


  • Reply to


    by polgringo Mar 22, 2016 10:59 AM
    vanlosian vanlosian Mar 22, 2016 12:31 PM Flag

    Common sense alone should tell you that there is no way that $200M figure for lawyer is correct. Either you read it wrong, or it was a typo. I won't even bother to look it up, but it's probably $2M.

  • Reply to

    question to LL longs

    by cnaipan Mar 12, 2016 2:25 PM
    vanlosian vanlosian Mar 12, 2016 6:50 PM Flag

    So you can afford to have close to a million dollars worth of one stock, yet you're asking the most basic of questions - and to a MESSAGE BOARD to boot? We're supposed to believe you? Ha!