🚀 go-pugleaf

"Monte" <montep@email.com> wrote in message
news:3d392281.135754965@news.ev1.net...
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 07:27:31 -0400, "Mark Probert"
> <mark_probertREMOVEGARBAGE@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Monte" <montep@email.com> wrote in message
> >news:3d385d5e.85288127@news.ev1.net...
> >> On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:19:13 -0400, "Mark Probert"
> >> <mark_probertREMOVEGARBAGE@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >BTW, I am looking for the actual date that the SEC dropped the
> >> >investigation, not just some statement that says 'last year.' I have
this
> >> >problem of liking specifics...
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hmmmm, you may like specifics, but with your reading abilities that
> >> must make it terribly difficult for you.  So here is an extract from
> >> the URL:(note the first sentence of the second paragraph)
> >>
> >> "....Such alleged IPO spinning where securities firms silently
> >> allocate chunks of hot new stocks to the personal brokerage accounts
> >> they hold for corporate executives was temporarily rooted out four
> >> years ago, when regulators investigated the practice after disclosures
> >> by The Wall Street Journal.
> >>
> >>         But regulators never brought any charges the SEC ended its
> >> initial investigation last year, said people familiar with the matter
> >> and spinning revived in a big way during the later part of the
> >> technology-stock bubble. Getting IPO shares during the dot-com boom
> >> was akin to being handed a windfall, on paper at least. Thus, it was
> >> very difficult for most investors to get shares. Wall Street firms,
> >> which have great leeway in deciding who gets the shares, generally
> >> reserved much of the stock for their most-favored customers, typically
> >> wealthy investors and big mutual funds."
> >
> >Thanks for your kind help.
> >
> >The real problem I have is with your attack on Pitt. He was appointed on
> >August 3, 2001. When was he confirmed? If he was not running the show
when
> >the invesdtigation was shut down, then, you are quite wrong.
> >
> You are indeed one of the more obtuse participants.  I didn't write
> the article, that was done by the Wall Street Journal, which not known
> as a bastion of liberal thought, I presume have some basis in fact to
> substantiate the story.

I am not doubting the story. I am doubting the link to Pitt, which you made.
Can you discern the difference?

>
> >So, you can see what specifics can do for the showing of ones
intelligence.
> >
> Yeppers, the specifics of who gets blamed for that story, the author
> or the referring poster certainly would seem to be an indicator of the
> complainers intelligence.

That was the other problem I had with your post...

> >BTW, I went to HS with Harvey.
> >Have a nice day.
> >
>
> Hmmm, somebody went to school with Jeff Skilling, Millkin, Neil Bush,
> Billy Sol Estes, Jeffrey Dahmer!  Are you implying that attributes of
> ones schoolmates rub off on those around them?

No. Rubbing off is the wrong term...