"I believe you're referring to the application for the excludable delay asking for more time."
Wrong. My post says "The SM response to the original complaint was filed EARLY (on 6/16)". What I was referring to was the SM response to the original complaint that was filed EARLY (on 6/16): http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/scKcUb
People who are following the filings realize that the applications for excludable delay, which you mistakenly suggest that I am referring to in my post, were filed in the DOJ's criminal case and have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with SM's response to the original complaint in the SEC's case.
The rest appears to me to be more off-base musings: "That was the one where Tao and Moskowitz appeared on the same page and working toward a settlement or plea. Then it appears the SEC just up and withdrew from any further negotiations " "Why did JT pull away from those settlement negotiations?" "I have wondered about Tao because he did suspicously withdraw from what looked like a forthcoming settlement." "it seems undoubtedly clear he's out to destroy the company in order to cancel out the shares." "If so, then he shares the same goal as the short and distorts who'd like nothing more than for the shares to be zeroed out and destroyed."
I can't believe that all of those wonderings and vailed accusations result from the changes from the first SM delay application to the second SM application, which are:
NONE.
6/4/10 (x) they are engaged in plea negotiations, which they believe are likely to result in a disposition of this case without trial, and they require an exclusion of time in order to focus efforts on plea negotiations without the risk that they would not, despite their diligence, have reasonable time for effective preparation for trial. http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/a9Eke
7/2/10 (x) they are engaged in plea negotiations, which they believe are likely to result in a disposition of this case without trial, and they require an exclusion of time in order to focus efforts on plea negotiations without the risk that they would not, despite their diligence, have reasonable time for effective preparation for trial. http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/baXVai