From: thomas.e.elam@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/8/2025 4:37 PM, -hh wrote:   
   > On 12/8/25 15:12, Tom Elam wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)