*Gibber*! *Drool*!

Message ID: 86875 Posted By: freecode_99 Posted On: 2004-01-29 08:50:00 Subject: If the MS Payment IS a loan, then... Recs: 8 time to report it to the observers of the MSFT antitrust settlement. That goes above and beyond and would amount to interference by proxy without any clean separation. It would put serious egg on their claims of non-involvement in the whole deal, and would put serious questions up about the viability of the Antitrust settlement altogether. If you can show me the link that determines it is a loan - I will gladly write the letters once again. It is time we stopped the BS and got on with business - so that means an end to the tortuous interference via proxy here. Please provide that link or bit which shows the loan status and I will get to writing an effective letter of complaint. I have also delivered my letters written to the SEC, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and the NY State AG to the Wall Street Journal's Managing and A

Message ID: 81320 Posted By: preadapted Posted On: 2004-01-15 11:39:00 Subject: Letter to NASDAQ Recs: 12 re: http://www.nasdaq.com//asp/quotes_news.asp?logopath=http%3a%2f%2fcontent.nasdaq. com%2flogos%2fSCOX.GIF&pageName=Company%20News&selected=SCOX&consumer=NDQ&StoryT argetFrame=_top&market=Nasdaq-SCM&coname=SCO%20Group,%20Inc.%20(The)&symbol=SCOX&cpath=20040115ACQPRN200401150801PR_NEWS_B_WES_LA_LATH030.htm from post # 81234 this AM Dear Sirs, I have read the article posted at the above URL and would respectfully request that you seriously consider the following: The Linux community is indeed in an uproar regarding what it perceives as an attempt to hijack hundreds of man years of legitimate copyrighted contributions by largely professional programmers from throughout the world, to a free and openly sourced computer operating system. These ladies and gentlemen quite rightly resent being characterized as "teenaged bedroo

Message ID: 78723 Posted By: freecode_99 Posted On: 2004-01-08 12:13:00 Subject: So What Shall it Take? Recs: 1 If they have screwed the pooch by failing to disclose the risk under their fiduciary responsibilities, what part of Sarbanes-Oxley or whatever corporate governance laws does this violate? As this is yet another failure to disclose in this long-standing series of failures to disclose, I am going to complain yet again when I do find the right statute and section of the law, for they have signed their names to the documents which swore that they had disclosed all risks. They did not - so the gig is up now. That is criminal. If nothing happens, then we know that Justice has failed to perform their duty. So, what will it take to get someone to do somethign and prosecute this case at last? ------------------------------------------------------------ The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Mess