From: Gary S. Gevisser
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 10:14 AM PT
To: James Glanz - New York Times
Subject: FW: FW: ...YOU SNOOZE YOU LOOSE...---...NULL
You snooze you lose.
Ps – you are also now on notice that Starbucks are guilty of “SHAREHOLDER FRAUD” as well as the heinous crime of “sucking up” to the tyrant anti-trust violating Kuwaiti and Saudi Royal family by going along with their Kuwaiti business partner who has threatened to pull the plug on the share price of Starbuck and those they have co-opted-corrupted like Peets Tea and Coffee whose growth is not dependant upon Starbucks continuing to open up some 5 shops a week in the Middle East outside of course of Israel.
Not to mention, however, that given Starbucks “command and control” position over the harvesting of coffee beans throughout the world the likes of weak-kneed Peets feel forced to “kowtow” and keep their big mouths shut, at least that is the position of Peets’ senior executives who have surely been informed by their legal counsels just like you that they now have a very SIGNIFICANT “disclosure” problem on their hands.
Can you imagine how invigorated “slave wage” paid employees of companies like PEET must now feel as they realize it is just a question of time before their co-opted-corrupted executives “bite the dust” replaced by fearless people who now know exactly how to bankrupt Starbucks well before Armageddon.
Such individuals can reach me at this email address.
[Word count 236]
From: Gary S. Gevisser [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 5:56 AM
To: 'James Glanz'
Subject: RE: FW: NULL
Did you get my response from yesterday?
From: James Glanz [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 4:17 AM
Subject: Re: FW: NULL
certainly interested in whatever you'd like to discuss. of course,
hard information rather than a viewpoint is really our stock in trade.
just let me know and thanks. jg
At 07:06 AM 12/26/2006, you wrote:
>would you like more information on why this police station raid distracts
>from the goal to avoid peace "at all cost" and not think it is an
>"extremist's" point of view but someone very knowledgeable about the
>middle east conflict?