"In-the-knows" have painted themselves into a corner

I think you mushrooms can't see the obvious because you've been kept in the dark for so long. Here, allow me to turn on the light.... (Thank you #1412!)

Open letter to Budigower and Pingman

The person who wrote this letter did not sign it for two reasons. First, he or she does not wish to be subsequently involved in needless, embittering controversy. And second, he or she has ample reason to believe that most of the views expressed below are shared by a very significant number of present or past SI forum members, even though these views would almost certainly be refused entry to the forums. There is no question that I (this person) am very far from being alone in thinking the way I do; which is why I took the liberty of using the subject pronoun 'we' instead of 'I' after this first paragraph.
WE are seriously questioning your integrity. And if integrity didn't come into play, we would have to question your sanity.

We are not questioning your integrity as it may be perceived by members of your closed inner circle. We are questioning it as it is or will soon be perceived by numerous people outside that circle.

Over the past couple of years, you have consistently given short shrift to the 'what if?' questions that potentially challenged your loudly proclaimed and jealously guarded beliefs. "What if this isn't really true"? "What if some, most, or all of our 'information providers' are part of an elaborate and sadistic plot"? "What if this has been an extended scam all along?" "WHAT IF WE HAVE BEEN WRONG?" Call your attention deficit intolerance, or call it complacency, smugness, stubbornness, short-sightedness, blindness – whatever it is, is both unprofessional and irresponsible.

It is unprofessional because you should always have been aware of the high probability of an ultimate payment failure, the distinct probability of a scam, and should have given these probabilities the room they deserve. It is irresponsible (if not unethical) because little or no thought was given to the consequences of your intellectual insularity on people who never had a real chance to consider opposing views. In more concrete terms: if some forum members prematurely quit a job they didn't like after you convinced them they would soon be millionaires, you are responsible; if other people continued, or started, to spend money they don't have after you convinced them they would soon have the means to pay off all their debts, you are responsible; if a lot of folks have to deal with dangerously high levels of anger, or depression, or both when their expected payouts vanish from you radar screens, you will be responsible.

You should, at the very least, have reserved a small corner of your forum for articulate skeptics. A forum is, by definition, a democratic instrument or venue. What would a democracy become without at least one opposition party? What would a democracy become if its government officials systematically snuffed out dissenting voices? It would become a totalitarian regime like the one you have been maintaining. And that kind of regime is something we abhor.

Not everybody sees the world through the prism of your seemingly unflinching, all-encompassing optimism; which is their right. Not everybody believes that a handful of 'New Agers' blessed with divine intentions and empowered by fabulous, if belated, SI payouts will be able to cure the ills of this world; and that, too, is their right – all the more so as you (not they, not we) have always been 'on the wild side' of things.

When, after two years without ANY VERIFIABLE PAYOUT, a greenhorn like Simonsage is still being advertised as one of your best information sources, we begin to wonder what's going on. When, after two years without any verifiable payout, a bitter, self-centered, adolescent-minded person like Burroak is still involved in the management of one-and-a-half or more SI forums, we keep wondering what's going on. When, after two years without verifiable payouts, a despicable individual like SIVIP, another of your vaunted information sources, is still allowed to verbally defecate on us, poor ignorant forum serfs, in exchange for his, oh so precious, stinking bits of information, we keep wondering what's going on. When your anticipated payout completion date has been pushed back another month for the past 13 months around the middle of practically each month, we keep wondering what's going on. When, after months and months of assumed preparation, experimentation and false starts, it has taken four or five major banks an additional three months (and two 'clean-up days') to process probably fewer than 6,000 and certainly fewer than 10,000 accounts, we keep wondering what's going on. But when none of these supposedly processed accounts is verifiably held by at least ONE of us, we have to keep wondering what's going on. And when, after two years without verifiable payouts, there is still no difference to us between your 'sightings' and glimpses of UFOs, we have to say, "This is it".

Then when we put all this together, our wonderings turn into disgust. Just how gullible do you guys think we are? And just how gullible ARE YOU?

The variously computed amounts of our expected payouts are as improbable as they are astronomical. You wouldn't arrive at these figures even if you added Cinderella to Alice in Wonderland. Well, of course, Alice and Cinderella are useful characters: they entertain us and lift up our spirits. But in the real world, they don't exist.

Perhaps you should have a chat with Nick Leeson, who now lives in County Galway, Ireland, and is quite approachable. His fraudulent trades caused Barings to lose 1.4 billion dollars in 1992 – and that was enough to sink the bank. Poof! No more Barings. Oh, and yes, Leeson was a kind of 'New Ager', too: he had used Chinese numerology to push his luck.
Or maybe you should talk to Jerome Kerviel, an English-speaking Frenchman whose shady dealings caused Societe Generale to lose 7.2 billion dollars as recently as January of this year – and that was almost enough to sink the world's largest bank for derivatives trading.

Or should we remind you that Northern Rock had to be nationalized by the British Government in February of this year after panicky depositors collectively withdrew what amounted to a little less than 2 billion dollars, on September 14, 2007?

Should we also remind you of what Morgan Stanley announced last December – that it would (only) need a 5-billion-dollar capital infusion from the China Investment Corporation to dig itself out of its near-bankruptcy hole after extensive losses ascribed to the American sub-prime crisis?

So there we are: it takes less than a 10-billion-dollar loss or emergency capital infusion somewhere on this planet to send tremors through our world's entire financial system, but several lucky-savvy-persistent former SI investors are going to secretly receive over one billion each from whoever bought out Sam & company! On what planet do you people reside? On what planet are you trying to make us live?

You have been dreaming. JUST ADMIT IT! Including us, often forcibly, in your visions of Oz may or may not have been well-intentioned to begin with. But whatever your initial intentions actually were, it's time to wake up, NOW. It's been wake-up time since a year ago.

Losing a hard-fought battle is not much fun. We all know that. But those who have this supreme courage, the ability to lose gracefully, those who can humbly say their mea culpa when they publicly admit that they were wrong, can still stand tall. We urge you to do just that. If you don't, what you will get for all your past efforts is more than your share of pity and scorn.

This is the endgame. Solid Investment is dead and there are no SI zombies come back from the dead. The time has come to put this protracted saga to rest, after a brief period of mourning. Let everyone grieve. And then, let everyone move on.

We urge you to PLEASE not prolong the agony

Langnes and Prof. Patrick Blanche, you two did a good job writing this letter. What I want to know is what did Budi say about this? and why I haven't seen it posted there? or was it deleted by Pingman?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is PB He is Professor Peter Blanche. My dear friend and confidant, author of the Open Letter (Post #1412) I think it is time I put him forward, my like minded friend and cohort. I was trying to shield him, being near retirement and his family lives in Sweden by my adopted home of Norway. But it is time to publish his truth.
SI cannot pay, there is not enough money in the world. He explains it all in his brilliant open letter. He is an authority, teaching English to people who don't speak English, phonetically, and highly educated in this practise. He has written papers on the subject, and teaches at Kumamoto Gakuen University in Japan which even Wiki states is a second level school.
Ah, well, I don't take much stock in Wiki, it is not Dutch. He has also been involved in calling Swisscash a scam, and was right about that, wait and see if he is not right about SI. He has to be, he is a professor!!!!

that's my work

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Langnes and Prof. Patrick Blanche, you two did a good job writing this letter. What I want to know is what did Budi say about this? and why I haven't seen it posted there? or was it deleted by Pingman?

I thought Langnes was one of the SI supprters, if not a VIP.
Did he switch sides?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Langnes and Prof. Patrick Blanche, you two did a good job writing this letter. What I want to know is what did Budi say about this? and why I haven't seen it posted there? or was it deleted by Pingman?

I thought Langnes was one of the SI supporters, if not a VIP.
Did he switch sides?

is there an echo in here?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I thought Langnes was one of the SI supporters, if not a VIP.
Did he switch sides?

Read the open letter! The professor thinks he's got it all figured out and the whole SI is a pipe dream and of course he is correct. Langnes only strings everyone along while really believing it's a pile of crap in the hopes of persuading everyone not to believe anyone but himself as the sole purveyor of truth. We should have listened to him because he is actually the only one who knows what he is talking about. I know this to be true because he told me so. He's not a SI supporter, he believes, and correctly so, it's nothing but a big ruse but he feels it's best to play both sides, some sort of ego trip but what's wrong with a little covert egomania when you are actually right. All great men have a healthy dose of ego and that being the case Langnes and his professor friend must indeed be great men. After all, it's not bragging when it's true, right? He played his hand carefully and is now known as the King international gossiper and and the most integrity based clearing house for passing personal messages over a wide scape of recipients world wide. He's a regular world wide tabloid bloggering magpie champion sparing no privacy and obliterating any sense of dignity, a magnificent success.

But what is all that when what he intended proves to be true after all. That is, this whole thing about SI is in fact a farce, a really big farce. He knows it and just wanted everyone else to know it also. What's wrong with that. Just because he came across as a pathetic and imperfect vessel doesn't mean what he and his professor companion has said is wrong. Sometimes it works out that way and the dregs of society can, in spite of themselves, bring a clear and accurate message. Just think of these two as twin Micheal Moores. While hideous to look upon they can really inspire cogent debate. So let's not be too hard on them, they may be the best we got to understanding this whole SI thing and more correct on this whole situation than we could ever have hoped to discover from any other source.

I don't care if Langnes is a prevaricating flip-flopper and a shameless postman for the vast distribution of discreet emails, he's my guy no matter what and his side-kick professor is all right by me too.

Don't dare deprive him of the only purpose he has in life and may his legacy be preserved for the fine contribution he and his professor friend has made in human affairs.

Just a plain old scam

You don't have to be a genius to kow that at this point

Ask world law and ask the FBI, and email them privately, this SI was/is a scam and SI was NEVER going to pay. I feel sorry for you if you are deluding yourself otherwise.

[sam colins]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Read the open letter! The professor thinks he's got it all figured out and the whole SI is a pipe dream and of course he is correct. Langnes only strings everyone along while really believing it's a pile of crap in the hopes of persuading everyone not to believe anyone but himself as the sole purveyor of truth. We should have listened to him because he is actually the only one who knows what he is talking about. I know this to be true because he told me so. He's not a SI supporter, he believes, and correctly so, it's nothing but a big ruse but he feels it's best to play both sides, some sort of ego trip but what's wrong with a little covert egomania when you are actually right. All great men have a healthy dose of ego and that being the case Langnes and his professor friend must indeed be great men. After all, it's not bragging when it's true, right? He played his hand carefully and is now known as the King international gossiper and and the most integrity based clearing house for passing personal messages over a wide scape of recipients world wide. He's a regular world wide tabloid bloggering magpie champion sparing no privacy and obliterating any sense of dignity, a magnificent success.

But what is all that when what he intended proves to be true after all. That is, this whole thing about SI is in fact a farce, a really big farce. He knows it and just wanted everyone else to know it also. What's wrong with that. Just because he came across as a pathetic and imperfect vessel doesn't mean what he and his professor companion has said is wrong. Sometimes it works out that way and the dregs of society can, in spite of themselves, bring a clear and accurate message. Just think of these two as twin Micheal Moores. While hideous to look upon they can really inspire cogent debate. So let's not be too hard on them, they may be the best we got to understanding this whole SI thing and more correct on this whole situation than we could ever have hoped to discover from any other source.

I don't care if Langnes is a prevaricating flip-flopper and a shameless postman for the vast distribution of discreet emails, he's my guy no matter what and his side-kick professor is all right by me too.

Don't dare deprive him of the only purpose he has in life and may his legacy be preserved for the fine contribution he and his professor friend has made in human affairs.

It isn t like you think .
Langnes is only a piece of the game which is played , and at the currently level the WLD forum get s involved.

cheers (scamsam, if you like, but i prefer)

Sam the best