Prev: Sandra Sully is hot
Next: Does anyone know what huppened to ...
From: Just JT on 4 Apr 2007 18:19

"Marco" <ignition.vess(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I never met him or anything but from what I saw in interviews and the
> like, he seemed like a likeable sort of a guy. Definitely troubled,
> but I didn't mind him at all. Given that he basically got rich
> without really hurting anyone else and helped other people make money
> along the way, he also seemed allright from that point of view.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many investors and financial advisers will disagree on this. Rivkin got rich
due to inheritance. He didn't help others to get rich: he was pretty much a
scam artist.

--
His.Rivkin.report.is.completely.useless

From: the_dawggie on 4 Apr 2007 22:50
On Apr 5, 8:19 am, "Just JT" <Johnnyt...(a)Hotmale.com> wrote:

> His.Rivkin.report.is.completely.useless

I went to school with a person who produced it.

Yes, it was not the best, worked for some folk
though.

From: Noddy on 4 Apr 2007 23:00

"the_dawggie" <the_dawggie(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message

> I went to school with a person who produced it.
>
> Yes, it was not the best, worked for some folk
> though.

I think the only thing that was "wrong" with it is that it only ever offered
basic advice, and didn't turn everyone who ever read it into instant
millionaires. I don't think that qualifies it as a "scam", but it wasn't a
guaranteed method for success either.

What it *did* seem to offer was just simple basic advice of the kind that
you'd pay any financial advisor for.

--
Regards,
Noddy.



From: Trevor Wilson on 8 Apr 2007 01:14

"Noddy" <dg4163@(nospam)dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4614664f$0$37464$c30e37c6(a)lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> "the_dawggie" <the_dawggie(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> I went to school with a person who produced it.
>>
>> Yes, it was not the best, worked for some folk
>> though.
>
> I think the only thing that was "wrong" with it is that it only ever
> offered basic advice, and didn't turn everyone who ever read it into
> instant millionaires. I don't think that qualifies it as a "scam", but it
> wasn't a guaranteed method for success either.
>
> What it *did* seem to offer was just simple basic advice of the kind that
> you'd pay any financial advisor for.

**What was wrong with the Rivkin Report, was that Rivkin (the arsehole,
criminal prick) would tell his gullible readers to buy a specific share,
which he was planning to unload. His gullible readers would bid up the
price, so he could dump his shares at a better price. He should have spent
more time in gaol. He was little more than a fraudster.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Sandra Sully is hot
Next: Does anyone know what huppened to ...