From: thomas.e.elam@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/7/2025 5:11 PM, -hh wrote:   
   > On 12/7/25 12:06, Tom Elam wrote:   
   >> On 12/6/2025 9:11 PM, -hh wrote:   
   >>> On 12/6/25 09:47, Tom Elam wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/5/2025 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:   
   >>>>>> LOL, it was just a partial picture. Just like yours.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Except that it clearly says "all accounts" with a total of $2.51M.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Here again you jump to a bogus conclusion.   
   >>>   
   >>> Nope, for I'm not who posted a pic which said "All accounts".   
   >>>   
   >>>> That was all accounts at that one company. There are 4 of them. We   
   >>>> have investments with other companies (and cash not shown) too.   
   >>>> Imagine that! Apparently you cannot.   
   >>>   
   >>> That claim doesn't square with what your own image displayed, because   
   >>> your image shows five accounts, not four.  There's the four obvious   
   >>> ones, with claimed balances of $5.5K, $10.8K, $39K and $0.4K, plus   
   >>> there's also "Individual Brokerage-2955" wtih $751.6K.   
   >>>   
   >>> Plus as I've said before, there's ~$1.7M unaccounted for because the   
   >>> above five accounts sum to $807.4K, but the "All Accounts" line   
   >>> claims four accounts for $2.5M:  $1,704,519 is not accounted for/   
   >>> undocumented.   
   >>>   
   >>> Hmmm...maybe there was a Photoshop job done here, eh?  /s   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>> To make you happy here are all of our investment accounts:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UevoIJ1SUe26Zq0XadMqEpgldjtJEq3B/   
   >>>> view? usp=sharing   
   >>>>   
   >>>> As of today, formatted just for you.   
   >>>   
   >>> Funny how none of the balances are even close to what you posted as   
   >>> your balances on just seven days ago.   
   >>>   
   >>> Funny how you're guilty of YA "do as I say, not as I do"...   
   >>> ...because you showed five digits, contrary to your own instructions:   
   >>>   
   >>> "So show us your numbers, with some details on where they are, with 7   
   >>> digits on the left of the decimal point. I did."   
   >>>   
   >>> Plus the second brag attempt is fishy smelling too, as some lines   
   >>> look like subtotals, possibly as a deception to try to encourage   
   >>> double- counting.  For example, $14,186.87 is the exact sum of   
   >>> $7,048.54 + $7,138.33 values listed immediately below it, as is also   
   >>> $54,223.21 ($26,945.97 + $27,227.24).   
   >>>   
   >>> Plus despite being allegedly of the same accounts, the two brags   
   >>> attempts don't appear to align well:  where is the former's $39.1K   
   >>> HYSA in the latter?  Did it drop by ~$12K in value in just one week?   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> -hh   
   >>   
   >> LOL! You are totally confused. Score!   
   >   
   > Tommy confesses that deception was actually his goal.   
   >   
   >> You will never see all details, > but look at this again:   
   >>   
   >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/145PxsEKUioG_HkUEKF8mzkUZQx_wsZqB/   
   >> view? usp=sharing   
   >>   
   >> The first image is a brokerage with 4 accounts. The second is a credit   
   >> union snapshot with 4 accounts.   
   >   
   > Incorrect, for you provided only one image.   
   >   
   > That you Photoshopped multiple images together doesn't change that the   
   > first says that its total is $2.511M   
   >   
   > Nor that we can sum the four CU accounts to get $55.8K, so even if your   
   > latest attempted explanation is accepted that these are in addition to   
   > the prior, its a "so what?" because adding the CU's $55.8K is just a   
   > minor +2% change.   
   >   
   >   
   >> There are other brokerage and cash accounts.   
   >   
   > To which we're expected to believe that while Tommy's trying to make a   
   > maximal brag about himself that he chose to not include?  Does not fly.   
   >   
   >   
   >> Stop trying to put is all together when you do not, and never will   
   >> see, the total picture.   
   >   
   > Yet that didn't stop you from trying to demand the total picture of   
   > others...hypocrite much?   
   >   
   >   
   >> Yes, the carefully redacted Excel version I downloaded from Quicken   
   >> has different numbers. That is because it is investments only, not any   
   >> banking numbers.   
   >   
   > Since you've already provided what you claimed were four credit union   
   > banking accounts, what sense does it make to do that?   
   >   
   >> What you are saying is a major change in amounts is actually VERY   
   >> VERY different accounts, investments not cash, with the names hidden   
   >> from you. There subtotals in the Excel image.  Of course you are   
   >> confused. The intent was not to inform.   
   >   
   > Of course the intent was not to inform:  it is to try to deceive. Notice   
   > how Tommy avoided acknowledging that at least two of his numbers were   
   > subtotals?   
   >   
   >   
   >> The only way this ever go started in the first place was you baiting   
   >> with claims that I am bragging about my financial status. Honest   
   >> person that I am I tried to show I'm not lying.   
   >   
   > Just merely two deceptive documents (so far) & lying through omission:   
   >   
   > "Throwing out misleading and irreverent numbers to impress others.   
   > Bad, very bad."   
   >   - Tom Elam, on 12/5/25 10:10   
   >   
   >   
   >> I could care less that you are among the many who have accumulated   
   >> more in less time that we have.   
   >   
   > Gosh, what a quick 180 turn, from just over a week ago, when Tommy was   
   > claiming the opposite (still!):   
   >   
   > Right side of Tommy's piehole, on 11/28/25 16:40:  "But since you seem   
   > to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black Friday..."   
   >   
   > Likewise, same arrogant piehole, on 11/28/25 10:58:  "Followup #2 ... My   
   > take is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very important to   
   > YOU. Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are you?"   
   >   
   >   
   >> Your amateurish attempts to reconcile incomplete and seemingly   
   >> inconsistent data, all of which are accurate by themselves, are   
   >> hilarious, never ending, and fruitless. I'm going to stop this here.   
   >> You need to give it up too. You are being made a fool.   
   >   
   > Translation:   
   > Tommy knows that he's been caught (again) with his deception attempt, so   
   > instead of being honest & accountable, he's going to run away (again),   
   > in a futile effort to try to save face (again).  Who's the fool again?   
   >   
   > TL;DR on all of this:  assuming minimal forgeries, Tommy's provided   
   > about the best evidence seen to date that he's probably accumulated a   
   > bit over $2.5M after having worked into his mid/upper-70s.  Of course,   
   > the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has made some   
   > pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart & dumb alike.   
   >   
   >   
   > -hh   
   >   
   No again Hugh, That was 2 JPG screenshots on a Word page.   
      
   So here is the reality.   
      
   For years I have baited you with partial and confusing information that   
   you continue to misinterpret in lengthy great detail as not being true.   
   Every piece of data provided has been true as of the date and time   
   posted. You have never seen the whole picture and never will. You have   
   spent hours trying to figure it out, and never will. All your time on   
   "analysis" has been pointless. LOL   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)