SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: DanZ who wrote (3305)8/26/1999 3:44:00 PM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 10293
 
You have it backwards. The burden of proof is on the person making the allegations, not the alleged perpetrator.

Exactly. You are alleging Bill has committed libel, ergo, the burden of proof is upon you. Bill, conversely, while alleging certain things about GUMM, has no intention of airing them in a legal court unless forced to by GUMM (by gum?), therefore he is under no such burden at this time. Once legal action is taken, matters may change, but until that time Bill owes you diddleysquat. Period, end of story.



To: DanZ who wrote (3305)8/26/1999 7:57:00 PM
From: Druss  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10293
 
Dan--In more general terms.
I have seen law suits filed against some posters. In some cases I have felt these are harassment suits to silence a poster who was bring out too much.
Bill has resources enough to take on a suit of this nature and is obviously willing to do so.
In general terms I have seen scam companies who did not sue because: The poster was correct, they did not want the publicity, and because of disclosure. Disclosure is a wicked weapon against a suit by a scam company and they will take the heat from a poster to avoid it.
I am not saying any of the companies we are discussing are scams, just that these are some of the reasons some companies don't sue. Companies are also like many people they would rather not be in court.
Druss