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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (62472)	6/15/1999 8:33:00 PM
From: gnuman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

CB, So should I assume that the Plaintiff's, (for example, Myerson), don't really think they can win the suit's, and are merely punishing the individuals in the courts? (In fact, wasn't that your original point?) (Here's the Myerson case again for anyone interested). news.com Must be more constructive things for all these lawyers to do. <g> Hey, for any lawyers reading, (not directed at you, Cobalt), that's just my opinion. <VBG>

To: Ilaine who wrote (62472)	6/15/1999 10:50:00 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Cobaltblue, What about the possibility that the flamer was well intentioned but simply wrong in his/her analysis. The statement would still be false and could still cause damage. I have misinterpreted numbers, accounting rules, etc... from time to time only to be corrected by someone else later. It would seem that you should have to prove that the person knowingly flamed the company with false info in order to cause damage. You shouldn't be able to sue for incompetence. Wayne