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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : HITSGALORE.COM (HITT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DSPetry who wrote (2835)	7/8/1999 1:58:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7056

Are you familiar with the concept of SLAPP suits, Dave? You should be by now. BW doesn't seem to be finding very much support for its "cause", does it? And did you see that DGIV got halted today? Another Rocketeer stock bites the dust.

To: DSPetry who wrote (2835)	7/8/1999 2:01:00 PM
From: Mama Bear	Respond to of 7056

Umm, I think you're very likely mistaken. Of course even if you aren't, delusion doesn't make them any more relevant. Reality is the important thing. Perhaps one day you'll figure that out. Barb

To: DSPetry who wrote (2835)	7/8/1999 2:03:00 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7056

Dave, regardless of how much merit BW thinks their suit has, it should fall flat on its face in light of actual fact. Why do you persist thinking that just because a suit is filed, that there's something to it? Suits often get filed just to harass people. Your own neighbor could file one against you today, if he felt like being a pain in the ass. Maybe he thinks its real. Thus, I should bug you about it continually if he did? webnode.com In the case of BW's thingie: • There Is No Violation of the Federal “False Advertising” Statutes • There Was No Federal Trademark Infringement Because Business Wire Consented to the Use and Because There Is No Likelihood of Confusion. • There Was no California Trademark Dilution Because There Was No Weakening Of the Mark or Commercial Use • There Simply Was No Breach of Contract at All • The Defamation Claim Cannot Stand Because There Is No Provably False Factual Assertion and Because Truth Is an Absolute Defense