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 : Business Wire Falls for April Fools Prank, Sues FBNers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (3076)	6/23/1999 1:15:00 AM
From: Blue Snowshoe	Respond to of 3795

TLC, I've heard it all. The boys in dresses should do a press release on Biz Nuss Wire: PRESS RELEASE: Crossdressing.childmolsters.com goes public. Shares will go public under the symbol SICKO, Crossdressing.childmolsters.com is an organization of cross dressing people who don't know who they are but see their company growing to 73 Billion in one year. The have 12 employees, three on sick leave who twisted ankles walking in heels. One employee has been on leave to have a baby for three years, she/he keeps saying "any day now, I just know it." Their main business is grossing people out which is a field new to many on Wall Street. Crossdressing.childmolesters.com plans on asking Janet Reno to become SICK's CEO so we could see a real pop in the stock. Many Clinton administration members are rumored to be naturals for the company. This statement contains forward looking statements and there is risk involved. However as long as these cross dressing clowns give us money we could care less what they do or say. PS Great sound wave, thanks, BLUE

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (3076)	6/23/1999 2:13:00 AM
From: X Y Zebra	Respond to of 3795

"they are making it sound like all guys that dress up in women's clothing are weird." Did they say anything about guys in chicken clothing ? Õ¿Õ oooo

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (3076)	6/23/1999 7:18:00 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3795

TLC, I think we won, but I'm not sure. Let's check Raging Bull: ragingbull.com (yes, this is really a real post—for the reals, man—like really dude, believe it or not, showing the argument of what we have found thus far, amongst the discussion boards, to be a typical BW supporter.) “The preponderence of your collective posts will weigh heavily against you. All those snide remarks, snickers, woo hoo's, name calling, moron thread posts, ha ha's, derogatory remarks, etc etc etc. will do you in.” ____________________________________________________ <Plaintiff> Your Honour, I submit that under California State Civil Code Number (blah-blah-blah-blah-blah), defendants' utterances of, 'Ha Ha' are a legal violation. Furthermore, we feel that Assault With A Deadly Woo Hoo unfairly infringes upon the rights of our client. <Judge> Hmmm…I see your point. What else do you have to offer? <Plaintiff> Your Honour, our opponents actually snickered in a public area. As you know, this goes against Federal Regulation Number (blah-blah-blah-blah-blah). <Judge> Interesting. And the Defendants plead…? <Defendants> Your Honour, both Federal and State rules suggest that whilst a number of 'Woo Hoo's and 'Ha Ha's were comitted, they were well under the maximum tolerance allowed by law, and that snickers are provided for if the defendant has a fistful of peanuts in every bite, which clearly is the case here. Furthermore, snide remarks can be accounted for in the case of Lennon vs. McCartney as I cite forth from no less of an authority than The Antichrist: antichrist.com , “See how they smile like pigs in a sty, see how they snide.…” Now—had defendants said woo woo a joob, woo woo a joob—there may have been a potential infraction as the precedent has been set forth for 'goo goo ga joob'. However, my client did not indulge in such a predicated travesty of justice. <Judge> Well—a couple 'Woo Hoo's and 'Ha Ha's never hurt anyone. Case dismissed. Defendants are free to go. Raging Bull poster, "Ray-Jay-Johnson" is sentenced to 20 years hard labour for seriously abusing the legal privilege of being stupid. Whilst all citizens are certainly allowed the right to be stupid, serious abuse of this legal privilege cannot be tolerated by this Court. Adjourned!