InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

Crazy Money

01/16/07 6:39 PM

#244288 RE: S.A.G. #244287

J.B. and/or J.S. Just a wild guess :) eom
icon url

HabaneroDog

01/16/07 6:40 PM

#244290 RE: S.A.G. #244287

who cares...
icon url

lucky, mydog

01/16/07 6:41 PM

#244291 RE: S.A.G. #244287

airys, here is the simple answer you have been given many times. IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT WASN"T ILLEGAL AND IT HAS NO BEARING ON ANYTHING.
icon url

MrGoodBuddy

01/16/07 7:00 PM

#244300 RE: S.A.G. #244287

Airys, this is part of the problem that some have had with you as of late. Everyone can understand if you were taken advantage of or lied to; however, it does not matter one iota who published that or where it came from.

It is a factual document and part of the truth that you expound to want to see come out. It's out, just because it goes against what you were told and telling others does not mean that it should be silenced.

That truly is mis-directed energy and it makes no difference. You dont like the affidavit, oh well. It is part of the truth that you seek and you should be all for it coming out.
icon url

Risicare

01/16/07 7:56 PM

#244315 RE: S.A.G. #244287

You know, I bet that the whole reason the OSC doc was let out was because of SLJB using you to put out unofficial prs. Don't be bitter cause the good guys decided to play ball also. Its quite hypocritical.
icon url

janice shell

01/16/07 8:03 PM

#244316 RE: S.A.G. #244287

What??

I still haven't received a reply from anybody about this. How convenient.

I alone answered your questions at least five times. So did others. You can't possibly have all these people on Iggy.
icon url

hasher

01/16/07 8:14 PM

#244318 RE: S.A.G. #244287

how can you call them simple questions? The answer to those questions has been posted numerous times and if it was all so simple one would easily grasp answers.
icon url

boogaloo

01/16/07 8:30 PM

#244322 RE: S.A.G. #244287

Exactly what DOES that have to do with the price of tea in China? THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE AT HAND HERE!!!
icon url

Jim Bishop

01/16/07 8:39 PM

#244325 RE: S.A.G. #244287

Sheeesh, I answered where I got it from, as did Janice. I also told you on the phone the whole scenario.

The Windsor Star obtained the document in it's research, from an OSC attorney I believe. I was asked to comment on it, so obviously I needed a copy in order to comment.

As far as I'm concerned, once it was given to the Windsor Star it was then public info which is why I and others passed copies along to anyone that requested them.

Nothing was hidden....the whole dang thing had been posted here before I'd even read it completely.

What is really puzzling to me is why you, or anyone for that matter, would either wonder, or apparently worry about it.

Don't like reality? Don't like the truth?
icon url

eliaman

01/16/07 11:46 PM

#244398 RE: S.A.G. #244287

anyone willing to address this? Posted by: Airys418
In reply to: Airys418 who wrote msg# 244241 Date:1/16/2007 6:34:56 PM
Post #of 244397

Here are two very simple questions I asked last week right here:

1) Who gave the scanned copy of the ORIGINAL affidavit on or after Jan 8 to an individual when TOM ANDERSON himself said to me that he was unaware that anything was handed out.

2) Who authorized it's posting on the internet? Was it the OSC?


I still haven't received a reply from anybody about this. How convenient. At least you all know where I got my info. I never hid that from anybody and like an idiot I posted it only to get me tons of headaches. Only shows you where my heart is.

Airys418