Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : FLAME THREAD - Post all obnoxious/derogatory comments here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Blue On Black who wrote (6844)	6/15/1999 10:00:00 AM
From: Druss	Respond to of 12754

Lee--I am in awe. That was so beautifully phrased. Not only eloquent but an exact recognition of what is going on. (Also brought back some great memories of back seats, woods and...well never mind.) Main difference with teen sex and IPO's are if successful in teen sex one of the participants doesn't retire to a villa on the Riviera. I have got to say though that you have just out done yourself. That was almost poetry. Except poetry has to rhyme or something. Druss

To: Blue On Black who wrote (6844)	6/16/1999 1:15:00 AM
From: Druss	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12754

Lee--I gave the idea around your post some thought. Interesting that a hypester we know (an arachnid sort of fellow) got a load of cash to hype a company. He did not care to reveal this and it came out in a round about way. So far as I know nothing was done to him for this major violation of the law. And certainly nothing was done to the company who paid him to hype them. Since he was representing them (damn poorly I might add) they should have seen fit to see that he did not lie, misrepresent them, or break the law and he did all of these things. I would have checked up on someone I paid to do something like this if nothing else to see that he was earning his money. Now why isn't a company liable for the actions of someone they have paid to represent them? It is not like they didn't have an opportunity to do so. He was posting for months. If we were to challenge his statements it becomes obvious that companies are willing to sue us to somehow 'protect' their interests. Or perhaps to harass us and others into silence. Why isn't someone going to the company and saying your paid representative lied about you and your products? He did not reveal his affiliation with you, he has worked for pay on your behalf to jack up the stock price. We are arresting the company officers because of this. Druss Further why hasn't a company approached us to do this sort of thing? If it is lies they want, I could have anyone reading a talk thread checking the sky if I said it was blue. I could tell some believable ones too, that's more than that guy ever did.