H2O

I don't want to push it, but I thought that you would have realized it after Devil also noted the same fact, that is your responses are sometimes harsh or forceful. I have no problem if you say that my comment has no merit as I previously said you decide what to do with that information, discard it or look into it. Those ppl who will read this thread will make up their own mind.

Ayokona, I have never said you were a liar so I wouldn't even bother with that! You are correct I disagree, but understand that for this post I disagree with your response, not your views I don't know where you got the idea that I disagree with your views for this post. For me to disagree with your views I would have gone off on explaining why it's Bush's fault, but I never did that! What I did was explain or tried to explain that your response to this thread was improperly put, that's all. As for forceful, you are and I don't want to give you an example of that. I have explained to you it's in the way you reply to some posts! As for an example it is not that I can't give you one, it's because I don't want to! EDIT: As for the stupid moron, I did apologize for that, but the reason I called you that is because I couldn't understand why you don't realize how your responses are harsh and sometimes out of context! The out of context is based on this post which I maintain is not political, but you made it so!

It is alright to be passionate about something it is something else to find any reason to argue that passion out. Unfortunately, politics is the few things that are very polar and when politics come up, discussions will get heated! I'm sorry, but I will not go dig out all the reponses you've done previously, this is what I have heard and this is what I'm telling you. I am not the spokeperson for anybody except for myself. You have to understand that not everybody is confrontational and they will not let you know what their thoughts are. As for me I will confront anybody, as long as I know what I'm talking about and you seem to be the same kind of person which is why we end up butting heads sometimes. I was told about it in private and it was my decision to write it out. It is up to you to decide what to do with this information.

That one is a pretty good return, but it wasn't hypocrisy, I just wanted you to read it, since you like to read. Some members think that you are too forceful when putting your point accross, which you do sometimes. I mean there are times when you are correct of course, but it's the way it is written out. As for the question which was not answered, when people are frustrated with something it is normal for them to take it out and blame it on what they think led to the frustration. For example and this is only an example... Those ex/employees of Enron who lost all of their savings/retirement because of the collapse blame their frustration and anger on the executives, but even though it is true that the executives are to blame, they are not to be blamed entirely for the lost. Why? That is because investing 101, accounting 101 or management 101 is never to put all your eggs in one basket. Now with the example above, you expand it to the President and the country as a whole, the frustration of being out of work or losing their business will be pointed to the President, whether he is entirely/partly to blame or not at all. This is why I maintain that this post is not political, it's just venting of his frustration. I hope that I make my point clear with the above example, if there are any other questions that you asked and I haven't answered, please do ask and I will answer them. As for my member title, I was not joking on that at least, that's what, all the IQ tests I was administered resulted in. I know that ppl say IQ tests do not prove anything and I do agree with that, but until some other test comes about IQ is the best we got! If you think that's too much gloating, I can change it to something else.

You are correct I should not have called him names, I do apologize for that, but I am not the only person who feels this way. I am just trying to make him understand that he can not take everything written so literally without putting any thought into his responses!

No animosity at all, Ayokona, it's just that I have read several of your posts, and you seem to tend towards your own point of view, without giving the other person a chance to explain his or hers. Ayokona as you know I can hold my own with you, just like you do with me, but in this case the guy was venting as his post title says it. As for me not reading in middle school, yes you are correct about that, middle school was way too easy for me, I skipped it and went directly to college! I am not going to debate you on politics, but I still hold that this post is not politically inclined. If the post was, he would have put that in his post title! The reason I said you seem to know everything is because of the way you approach your responses. When you respond to something you don't seem to make your point accross, you force your point onto the other person, whether your point is correct or not. As for unemployment, I will not debate you on that too, but do not base yourself on a one month information only, but look at the total in years. And if you read the news and articles as avidly as you seem to do, you would have known that US unemployment just went up by 360,000 last week. If you care to read the news excerpt here it is from AP: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...o_ec_fi/economy As for me being reported that's fine, the mods can do what they have to do.

It's been a while that I haven't replied to a post on here, but now I feel I have something to say... To begin with, General, I feel for you, I'm really sorry to hear about your dad's business. The past years have been tough on a lot of people, even more so for those who are fighting in Iraq and those who are unemployed. Next I just want to say that Ayokona is a stupid MORON!! General wrote out what he felt about things and he wrote it out with frustration when seeing his dad closing down his business. He didn't write it out to express his political views or which party is better, he wrote this post to express his feelings. As always Ayokona has to write something about politics, as if he knows about everything in the world and as if what he writes is 100% correct over everybody else! It is true that General did mention Bush and capitalism, but the fact is that he would have mentioned whoever president was running the country at the time his dad closed down shop, whether it be a republican, democrat or liberal! All General wanted is to hear what people on this board had to say and have a support with his pals here, but I guess that is too much to ask for from Ayokona! This post was not political at all, it was just letting out steam, frustration and anger. P.S. I directly point to Ayokona, because he is the first person to divert the post to politics, I know Sly_C also talked about it, but it's only after several responses! This is pretty sad!!!

Some information on a new worm created with the purpose of corrupting a hard drive, the link below links to the slashdot.org article: http://slashdot.org/articles/04/03/21/0023...tid=190&tid=201 Is this an old concept becoming new again?

I just have to say LOL!!!

That I have to agree with you whatever is done the common people always end up at the losing end! If we were in the TKC group we would probably be in the top 10 with the amount of typing that went with this thread! EDIT: Inflating the books is because of their compensation package not entirely for trading purposes

By publishing reports, I take it you mean company financial reports. If that is the case then you are wrong by stating that the SEC moves the price to its correct level by publishing reports! Still, if you are talking about financial reports of companies, these companies are required to file their quarterly reports [every 3months] with the SEC and at the same time these companies, not the SEC, provides the reports to all brokers involved with the shares of that company. These reports are public as soon as they are filed at the SEC, meaning everybody in the world can look at these reports at the same time if they wish to. 'Big-wigs' can not profit from anything, the law also stipulates that if the 'big-wigs' want to sell their shares of the company they run, they have to file their intent to the SEC in a timely manner before selling. Again at the point in time when they file their intent at the SEC it becomes public domain and knowledge for the world to see. As you can see these rules are there to level the playing field nothing more! True but that does not mean there shouldn't be a law against it! It is almost impossible to ctahc anybody ina hit and run, EVERYONE knows this.... does that mean there should be no law against hit and run? Who is the foolish CEO who will dump all his/her shares of a tanking company at once so as to cause the public to investigate the books of the company? The quote from Pr. Manne is assuming these CEOs are idiots to cause such a big drop in his/her company by selling his/her shares and causing the public to notice! Since it is impossible for the general public to know who is selling or buying stocks, how will you know the CEO is doing it unless it is reported somewhere or after the stock has taken the dip? Do notice though that every examples you provided I deconstructed them and rejected them by giving you reasons. I did not just plain say I reject your idea without giving you an explanation. It is true that we are only going in circles, because you don't want to see it in my view, and I'm not agreeing with your view. We can always end it as is and allow those who are reading to make their own opinions.

I read both aritcles that you posted the links to and again I am telling you as many articles you put up for insider trading, I can match you in articles against insider trading. Unless you want this discussion to go towards articles, I rather march my knowledge of the subject. Again I am telling you that you do not fully understand the job of the SEC. The SEC is not a police body, the are a monitoring body! You are thinking that the SEC is like the police they enforce the LAW, the SEC only monitors and makes sure that those involved with the stock abides by the rules. As a monitoring body, the SEC can not control whether the stock crashes or not, they can only make sure that companies are submitting their infos as timely as possible taht's it. Crooks were there from the beginning I completely agree with you, but it is because of crooks that there is something that is called LAW. Whether you like it or not, it's only when foul play is discovered that a law is created. How do you think every single law in this world was laid out? The LAW was not created overnight, there had to be circumstances that caused public outrage for the law to be created and each time wrong is done towards the public, there is a new law created aganst that wrong. In all these pages of discussions where did I even mention Public Education and SS or IRS? Keep the discussion on topic as much as possible. It is also amazing that you can say NOTHING has changed in this World! What you are trying to tell me that how the world worked in the 20s is the same now? Or even better how the world worked in the 80s is the same now? He can be a Nobel Laureate in economics, that does not mean I agree with his statements. In addition the interview was not even about Insider Trading until Milton added insider trading which was not even related to the question asked! A quote from the interview: "You want to give the people most likely to have knowledge about deficiencies of the company an incentive to make the public aware of that." What a joke that quote is! If you have an inside tip on something and you are profiting off that tip, would you let the general public know about it. I will not, I will keep profiting from that information without telling anybody. I am greedy, so are most people in this world! I don't care to discuss that interview I am discussing your points, everything I wrote was based on what I know and I don't have to quote articles. I have provided several examples where I do not agree with Insider Trading, If possible why not give me examples of how insider trading will benefit everybody without quoting articles, but by your own experience?

According to your sentence I understood it as Insider trading was outlawed in the 60s. I don't think you understand the job of the SEC. The SEC is an oversight body in place to control the market, to set rules with regards to market trading and to prosecute when the rules are broken. The SEC has nothing to do with news releases regarding companies, hence has nothing to do with FAT cats gettingn rich. The SEC only makes sure that the playing field is level for all those investing. I did read your example and to tell you the truth it does not make much sense, which is why I did not respond to that example. Your sentence above, does not make much sense, but I take it you are trying to say that ppl who know what they are doing will know when to sell. If that is what you mean then you are wrong. Let's say a stock is trading @ $10, then an executive sells his/her shares of the company based on an inside tip. When that person sell, the price is $10, the amount being sold is usually quite a big %. All of this is happening without anybody in the general public knowing about it. When the market receives the sell, the price of the stock dips to $8.50, the general public does not react because this might be the usual fluctuation of the stock, some brokers might react but not much. Then comes the news that made the exec sell and now the brokers start selling in big numbers, by the time the general public gets the news and initiates sell of the stocks, the price is now probably @ $5. If you can tell me with proof that at the point in time when the exec sells, YOU, as an informed person, will know right away how much stock and why they are selling, then I agree with your reasoning, but if you answer NO there is no way for you to know when that exec sells, then I stand my ground with regards to Insider Trading. I consider myself a very well informed person and I can tell you right now there is no way for me to know what is happening to a company at the instant it is happening unless I read it off a press release. Not even employees of that same company knows what is happening until they hear about it in the news. To begin with as previously stated Martha Stewart has not been charged with Insider Trading yet!!! The proof of Insider Trading is based on communications log, email, phone calls, memos and also timing of the sell after communication was made. Just for those who don't know about it, it is a requirement by Federal Law that companies have to keep logs of all communications and documents [at executive level even more so than at employee level] for several years and it is against Federal Law to destroy these records. I understand what you want to prove, but your idea of a free market is way too idealistic to be applicable to the real world. Based on the fact that I thought you looked into when Insider Trading was outlawed and stated it as in the 60s, I just decided to make you understand that when the stock was first created, the SEC did not exist. Something catastrophic had to happen in order for the SEC to be created and that's the only job the SEC has, that of monitoring and making sure everybody involved abides by the rules. In a way you can say that before the SEC was created the market was a FREE market, but it is because of crooks that now we have a body to monitor and prosecute. So if you want to blame somebody about the market not being FREE anymore, blame it on the crooks not on anything else.

This is quite an interesting paper since it covers the future in vehicular propulsion. Since your topic is 'hydrogen as a power source' which is quite general and not limited to vehicular engines I would: Provide some ideas of what are the different forms of Hydrogen being researched, even though most ppl think that when Hydrogen is being talked about, they are talking of the gaseous element, but actually research is being done with Hydrogen gas, Hydrogen liquid and also Hydrogen gel. Of course to be applicable to everyday human use, Hydrogen liquid is too explosive if mishandled, Hydrogen gel might be too expensive and unstable in normal conditions, which leaves us with Hydrogen gas. I do not have direct knowledge of the internal workings, only what I have read. Hydrogen gas is readily obtained from most chemical reaction, but the key is to obtain the most amount of gas out of one reaction. For example there is a company [Millenium Cell] researching a reaction that produces 4 molecules of Hydrogen by mixing a salt [NaBH4] + water [H2O]http://www.millenniumcell.com/solutions/white_hydrogen.html NaBH4 + 2 H2O

Funny you should mention the 60s, why not go to the beginning... I do not know [don't care to look into it] when the market was created, but I know it goes back before the 20s. Of course during these times, there was no such thing as the SEC or any other body monitoring the exchange. According to History one of the worse [even worse than the recent market crash] happened in October 1929, where the market lost a total of 14 Billion dollars of wealth. To some it might seem to not be a big number in present time, but 14B in 1929 is just unimaginable! [Just ask an elderly what $10 was worth when he/she was a kid compared to $10 in present day.] There are several reasons for the crash, one of them was incorrect financial data from the companies and another was a bad banking structure based on the profitability of the stock market. After the whole thing exploded, the SEC was established to lay down the law and punish violators. All of this explanation just to bring a point forward and that is if at the time there were no unscrupulous people working the stocks or the banks do you think that the SEC would have been created in the first place? If 'Insider Trading' was outlawed in the 60s [according to the quote] means that whoever did an inside trade caused such a big mess in the market that the SEC had to create a law against it. For a long time there was no law against driving without auto insurance and then something happened [don't feel like going into details] that caused the law to be created and now it's illegal to drive a car without insurance in most states. The Law in general has been created to protect the general public and their interests. Think about the chaotic life that would be present if there were no laws. I know the last two sentences are generalising, but so far, the rebukes have only been about being against Government intervention and no concrete explanation or information as to why. Mind you I am not saying that I agree with Governement intervention, all I'm saying is that society in general has to have certain set limits and control otherwise think about the mess that would be the life we would be living.