Also, if you read all the posts from this thread which I doubt you have, there are numerous posts warning people very early on that they needed to be careful. Even people who were invested continue to question the validity of the returns they were recieving. If you look back over the threads you will see that the same people who chose to keep rolling over their returns(like MMC) are the same people who are now going after the net winners. So basically they did not at cautiously and got greedy. Now they want others to help bail them out because of their bad descisions. Im sorry but that just makes me sick. I gurantee if these people were on the other end we would not hear a peep out of them. Seriusly, investing is a risky business period, if you cant take a bloody nose every now and then you have no place investing. That doesnt mean yolu shouldt go after the people responsible for fraud but to propose going after people who came out of it winners because of some misplaced jealousy is just wrong. And make no mistake, by questioning the "winners" integrity and trying to make them feal guilty, you are going after them.
Low and behold...Robert Hendree(sp), called me this past Wednesday and wanted to offer a business opportunity with him...what is he thinking. Secondly, is anything happening to him. He said the conversation was being recorded for his safety. Of course he called from an unknown number...has anyone else heard from this guy??
txrunner, he treated you like an old girlfriend. You know men's attitude. Once you put out, you will always put out... LOL :protest: Keep your legs closed. LOL
That is so funny.
atlanta investor,
If you had been reading the thread as you have claimed to do, you would see that I have not said that we should "go after" the net winners. We should appeal to them.
If you had been reading the thread as you have claimed to do, you would see that I only had ONE return. ONE return which I rolled over, and do not expect back.
If you had been reading the thread as you have claimed to do, you would understand that a crime has been committed, and an appeal went out to the net winners to consider returning the money.
If you had been reading the thread as you have claimed to do, you would see that greed would be on the part of EVERYONE who ever invested in Pinnacle or any other company, if greed were truly a motivation for investing in the first place. And who is more greedy, those who choose to look away when they know that a crime has been perpetrated, yet choose to keep the money from the defrauding of others. Or those who invested and lost? Greed is a silly argument.
The only ground I stand on is the law of the universe, you reap what you sow. You claim that I stand on high moral ground yet YOU call all of us investors greedy and you claim that you knew it was a scam and insinuating that we were stupid. Well, then if that was the case then some people got very wealthy off of this scam. You're argument is not very well thought out.
None of us know what we actually lost until everything is finished. I didn't lose anything I couldn't afford to lose. But I still would like as much of my principle back as possible. As for exact numbers, I am not going to tell you. And it is a very rude question.
Atlantainvestor, or should I say, Gene O'Neal, why are you here? You sound an a lot like the same person over and over again under different screen names. The greed comment, saying we are stupid for not recognizing a scam. Same stuff different day. And I am betting you are the same person. Moneypoint, Bigman and Robster, I am not talking about you. But I remember not so long ago a Scott22 saying nearly the same thing. And then earlier in the discussion, a couple of times too fom a couple of different screen names, same words, same way of writing. HMMMM....
well, think what you want there chief.. these are my first posts and i plan on being a active member of this comunity. I never said anyone was stupid. Everybody makes a mistake from time to time or has someone try to swindle them. I totally agree with going after the people who committed the fraud. What I dont agree with is trying to pull those who got out early down with you. it is fairly ovbvious by your posts you do not have much investing experience. Since it is clear nobody will change your mind, and out of respect for the others, I will refrain from comenting furher on the topic and wish everyone the best of luck. The only reason i decided to chime in is because i just could not believe what you were doing by trying to question the integrity of people you didnt know.
MMC,
Why don't we drop the "net winner" subject! Unless a person just joined Pinn. weeks before they were shut down, and had absolutely NO opportunity to roll over or cash out, the rest of us made our own decisions. Nobody held a gun to anyone's head saying we had to roll our principle over....maybe we were all alittle hopeful or greedy to just keep it rolling "ONE MORE TIME". The smart people cashed out every time or had already closed out their contracts before this all went down. They are not to blame....Gene O'Neal is! The focus shouln't be on the people that got lucky and got their money out. That's what WE ALL wanted to do. That's why we got involved in the first place! And before you write back to me saying I must be one of the "WINNERS", I'm not! I'm not G. O'Neal either. I think it's time to move on to another subject, this one has run it's course!
I just want to ask you to be mindful of the words you use on the forum, just because you are fortunate and was able to invest just what you can loss does not give you the right to call anyone foolish. if you have a personal beef with mmc keep it that way.
To all of the people who are sick of hearing about the net winners...
I have only been saying the same thing over and over...explaining to those who do not understand my point, who asked me to give examples and defending us to those who were downright rude about the investors here. If there are those of you who are sick of hearing about it, I am just as sick of defending my point...or should I say, the way the universe works (not the business world) the universe, God, Jesus, Allah, Buddha or the many Hindu Gods, whatever you choose. The people who have been arguing about it have not figured it out yet. But they will.
Remember, even if you didn't participate in the crime, benefitting from one after finding out one has been committed and not making it right is not good ju-ju either.
Not my rules.
atlantainvestor, I did not say that you said we were stupid, I said you insinuated that we were stupid. You have a sinister knack for twisting words. You seem intelligent, however, when you read things wrong or not in their entirety, it makes YOU look bad when you comment on them with such pompousness and error.
Good luck to all investors who lost, investors who "won", to those who can so easily stand superior to those who have lost and to those who need to find their courage for the adversity they will face trying to feed their families and hold onto their houses until this is over.
MMC - End it NOW! Thank you.
It looks like all the activity here has dried up. Is the Pinnacle debate over? Just checking in. Does anyone have any new news?
GrrrreatLakesGal- Asking Newsweek for their ad revenue is just a variation on the theme of "Net Winners". Newsweek was not in any conspiracy to profit from Pinnacle's fiasco. Boycotts are valuable tactics over social injustices to help change policies, but it won't work in the current case. Remember, Newsweek has only an obligation to make sure that the ad doesn't violate community indecency standards (obvious porn), is not advertising anything illegal on face value (cocaine, weapons) and is not in poor taste (pictures of abortion). The Pinnacle ads do not meet any of those tests because they simply advertised a rate of return using real estate. Newsweek is not on their Board of Directors and did not know the actions (or inactions) Pinnacle was taking.
Help me with your logic: If Newsweek has culpability because they accepted money for an ad, do the organizations you called ( FBI, the SBC (sic) and the Greater Atlanta Real Estate Board as well as the local police and several Atlanta-based realtors ) also need to pony up some money too because they didn't raise a red flag? Could the reason that no red flags were raised be because nothing was outwardly wrong until it fell off the cliff? (Except the business plan to pay 25% every 60 days which everybody should have known was unsustainable)
While I also believe that this forum does not add value when people are called names, I also believe that everyone needs to stay within reality in pursuing an enforceable action. It serves no purpose to whip up frenzy in pointing fingers where zero culpability lies. I also think that Mr. Hays has control right now and there really is very litttle anyone can do except stay current with the situation and report any helpful information to him through email. One cook in the kitchen will get the job completed quicker.
EDITED BY MODERATOR - PARTS OF MESSAGE REMOVED
I'm sorry but you do not get to decide who gets too post here or tell the mods how to run the forums. Forums like this exist for educated debate and discussion between individuals. I have posted my thoughts in an effort to keep you and others from wasting your time and to protect those who you would seek to harm because of your jealousy and greed.
You're right. I've gone and banned atlantainvestor. This forum was not created for people to insult one another on. I will not put up with that kind of behavior.
People are entitled to have crazy or "stupid" ideas. They are entitled to post them here. What is not entitled is being nasty or abusive to those people!
Anyone heard anything new recently?
I haven't been following this for awhile because it seems that so far Mr. Hays is doing a great job, but I was interested in Grreat Lakes Gal's comments about Newsweek's involvement in all of this. I expressed similar sentiments here a few weeks ago. Okay, yeah, they probably don't have a legal obligation to do anything - lawyers just chill out a little bit here. Just take a deep breath - we're not talking about the law, we're talking about integrity, trust, decency, doing the right thing. Something that probably doesn't compute in most lawyers' brains. What about the public's perception of Newsweek as a company of supposed repute? I, for one, trusted Pinnacle simply because they were allowed to advertise in Newsweek. That says a lot for my simple trust and loyalty in that rag. If you can't trust Newsweek, who can you trust? The question is, are they going to try to keep my trust and do something honorable now, or are they just going to take their money from whatever is left of Pinnacle and then go ahead and take the next jackass ad that comes their way? Who is going to have trust in them anymore? Not me. In fact I'll probably cancel my subscription. Trouble is, where do I go, Time? Are they going to model their integrity as an American institution that finally took a stand against the leeches of society that would happily take all our money and run, or are they going to stand, hold out their hand and take money from an obvious scam-artist like O'niell?
I'm with you, GL Gal! Thanks for taking a stand for decency. God only knows this country needs it now! :superman:
Thanks for your post. I have alway believed that the advertizer needed to return if not all some of the money they made to help O'neil in the scam. Most people only knew about this thru Newsweek. If they are not going to do it willingly then maybe we can force their hands. I agree this is not a legal issue.
Any way if there is anything I can do to help in this effort please let me know.
We really need Mr. Hays help here, since we need to know the total payments made and owed to publications. Someone would have to be in charge of this. I feel Newsweek and other publication’s credibility, is in question here. We don’t want to hurt them. We just want them to realized what they have caused
I still say we need to become better organize as a team. We have a lot of great ideas, but we need to see it them thru. Hopefully Mr. Hays will eventually be able to give us internal list of all the investors with our phone #. This would help us communicate better.
Sammy
I agree about consulting with Hays on this issue. It's not that Newsweek has any legal obligation here, but I would hope that they would accept some professional responsibility as a magazine of repute to letting this fly-by-night get-rich-quick scheme take out a full page glossy in their rag without somehow being vetted first. I get plenty of junk mail from scheming crooks everyday, all of which goes immediately into the recycling bin. I thought I could trust someone that Newsweek let advertise in their hallowed pages, simply because I trusted Newsweek (for some strange, naive reason). Hopefully, they want to keep their reputation and our trust. If they do the right thing I'll certainly tell all my friends that at least one American institution hasn't completely sold out yet.
GL Gal, let us know what Hays' take on this is? :pup: