SallyRand

I gave a lot of though to responding to charlieg but decided that I am tired of his shit and the shit of others. I am tired of stupid shit, so here we go and we will let the chips fall where they may.

To charlieg:

And I reiterate that you are dumber than a box of rocks.

And..just who is "we", anyway? You got a fucking mouse in your pocket or a hamster up your ass?

When asked for proof of your pitiful and insane allegations, you merely show four year-old posts from a screwball anti's blog and have yet to give the Gentle Readers a speicific example.

charlieg has linked to fucking BLOG posts; mostly made up by aonymous persons.

charlieg has been challenged to show a single ISP suspension for "spamming" and has failed to do so.

charlieg has failed to show that I have or have ever had a ROKSO (Spamhaus) listing of any kind and he/she/it cannot show such a thing because I do not have nor have I ever had such a listingand I think fucking SPAMHAUS would know!

charlieg has been challenged to show one single fucking verified "spam" (As defined by the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) brought against myself or ANY of my businesses; ongoing or discontinued.

And those "press releases" charlieg's equally insane anti buddy metnioined in his blog?

Let's see one. Just one. Only one.

charlieg can't do it because no such "press releases" exist and never have.

I am often amused by those who point to the little stock spam tome and shout out how that for anyone to have written that one, the author had to be doing stock spam! What a bunch of pathetic losers! The referenced article was actually based on two ditties about stock spam found in a Google search; most notably this article which appeared in the BBC online, reprinted below the link for the Search Disabled among you:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5284618.stm

"BBC NEWS
Spammers manipulate stock markets
Spam messages that tout stocks and shares can have real effects on the markets, a study suggests.

E-mails typically promote penny shares in the hope of convincing people to buy into a company to raise its price.

People who respond to the "pump and dump" scam can lose 8% of their investment in two days.

Conversely, the spammers who buy low-priced stock before sending the e-mails, typically see a return of between 4.9% and 6% when they sell.

The study recently published on the Social Science Research Network say their conclusions prove the hypothesis that spammers "buy low and spam high".

The researchers say that approximately 730 million spam e-mails are sent every week, 15% of which tout stocks. Other estimates of spam volumes are far higher.

Mass marketing

The study, by Professor Laura Frieder of Purdue University in the US and Professor Jonathan Zittrain from Oxford University's Internet Institute in the UK, analysed more than 75,000 unsolicited e-mails.

All of the messages touting stocks and shares were sent between January 2004 and July 2005.

? Our analysis shows that spam works ?
Professors Frieder and Zittrain

The e-mail messages had either been received by Professor Zittrain or been posted on a newsgroup, known as Nanas.

Nanas is used to alert network administrators about new spam messages and the action they can take against them.

The researchers were then able to compare the estimated size of an e-mail campaign with trading activity and share prices immediately before and after the first arrival of a spam message.

The team found that a spammer who bought shares the day before starting an e-mail campaign and then sold them the day after could make a return on his or her investment of 4.9%.

"If he or she were to be a particularly effective spammer, returns to this strategy would be roughly 6%," they wrote.

Conversely, if someone who received the message chose to invest $1000 (£530) in a promoted company they would be left with $947.50 after two days.

Victims of a large e-mail campaign could be left with $930 after two days.

On average a victim loses $52.50 for every $1000 invested.

However, real losses would be even greater, the team suggest, because the victim would also have had to have paid fees to buy and sell the shares.

"Our analysis shows that spam works," the team wrote.

"Among its millions of recipients are not only those who read it, but who also act upon it"

Security firms advise e-mail users to install a spam filter, delete unsolicited messages and never to respond to offers.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...gy/5284618.stm

Published: 2006/08/25 11:10:42 GMT"

And this one, again reprinted for the non-cut-and-pasate crowd:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/tzink/archiv...31/684685.aspx

"Dow Theory and stock spam
tzink
31 Jul 2006 8:43 PM

One of the things I do in my spare time is trade stocks on the stock market. With all of the stock spam we (ie, customers) receive I wondered if there were any applications to the market and market theory.

Something I have learned about in the past two years of trading is Dow Theory. Dow Theory has six theorems and I would agree with all of them. I won't go into the full theory here, but I want to allude to theorem 6, that "trends exist until definitive signals prove that they have ended."

Stock spam attempts to sucker investors in by preaching that a certain penny stock is about to explode. The spammer has shares in the company and when the general public plows their money into the stock, the price of it shoots up. Since penny stocks are highly illiquid and cheap, investors figure they can buy a lot of shares, wait for the price to go up and then get out at the top (since the stock is about to explode). This never works for a couple of reasons.

First, it assumes that investors actually will get out after they have increased their money after a short period of time. Personally, I find it incredibly difficult to get out after a quick profit because I find myself always wanting more. I find it extremely doubtful that people who buy stocks from a pump and dump stock scam actually would have the personal discipline to get out quickly, because if they really were disciplined they would not have gotten into the stock in the first place.

Second, and this is the real problem for investors, it assumes that they actually can get out quickly after the price shoots up. Penny stocks, as I said above, are highly illiquid. These means that it is difficult to get one's money in and out with driving up or down the price of the stock. If a person buys 1000 shares of a stock that normally trades 100 shares per day then when they get in, they will drive the price up. When they get out, they will drive the price down. It's a losing proposition in both directions. What's worse, they may even have trouble liquidating their positions.

How this fits into Dow Theory is that one of its corollaries is that manipulation of the long term trend is impossible. According to Dow Theory, there are three trends - the first is the short term trend, lasting days to weeks. The second is the intermediate trend, lasting weeks to months, and the third and most important trend in the primary trend, lasting months to years. While it may be possible to manipulate the short-term trend and maybe even the intermediate trend, the primary trend cannot be manipulated.

What this means for penny stock investors is that if you pile into a stock and the price shoots up, as soon as that demand goes down the stock will go back to where it was before everyone piled in and resume doing what it was already doing. If the stock was moving no where for years, it will go back into the trading range and resume going no where for years. If the stock was in a down trend it will retreat back into the down trend. Hoping for a big pop and then getting out may prove difficult, and holding on for the long term is an even worse proposition. Do not buy stocks in stock spam; it's pretty much guaranteed not to work."

Writing a cogent article got the author tagged as a "Rampant Internatnional Criminal Stock Spammer"( Evidently the BBC also knows so mouch about stock spam that it must also be a "Rampant Criminal Stock Spammer"!)!

Now if charlieg has an issue with the "Nick Danger" persona, charlieg might just Google a term like "spamgossip" and see where it takes him. Or anyone might. Hesitant to post direct links as I'm not sure exactly how the GFY rules apply, so if that suggestion doesn't work for you, try Googleing:

"Nick Danger Spamgossip" and a couple of things will happen.

Everyone will then know what the "Nick Danger" profile was all about and charlieg will be shown up as the pathetic asshole that he really is.

If "charlieg" fails to meet the challenges I have put up to him, in that "charlieg" has failed to prove any of the allegations he/she/it has made against me, instead choosing to provide only unvalidated fucking BLOG links, all of which are without foundation, I call for:

PROOF OR BAN of charlieg!