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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Ontex Resources (ONT Alberta) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Farm Boy who wrote (403)	9/23/1999 11:38:00 AM
From: mark warburton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 519

More then welcome fellow "SHAREHOLDER". Watching the price of gold? Really starting to worry the shorts I would think. Dollar not acting to well markets looking a little tired and y2k for a little concern. gold has typically been the safe haven in troubled times. With Ontex and its resource calcualtions you also have to consider that Placers calculations inculded no drill data less then .10 so if the price of gold continues to rise this portion of the deposits will become highly feasible for mining hence increasing the total reserves substantially. anyway Best of trading to all. P.S. Mr. Webb you brought up a valid scenario but responsibility and accountability still lies somewhere. Mark

To: Farm Boy who wrote (403)	10/13/1999 12:59:00 PM
From: Tim Cruise	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 519

Farm Boy, something for you to think about. In fact, Chet may have written this with you in mind ... Should Anonymous Online Critics Be Held Accountable? By Chet Dembeck E-Commerce Times Columnist October 12, 1999 Since the advent of online trading and e-commerce, message boards and chat rooms have become havens for those who want to take shots at or float rumors about different companies and their top management. Unfortunately, most of the popular investment boards allow these often-ruthless online critics the use of aliases to hide their true identities. However, according to recent reports, more and more companies are fighting back. By subpoenaing these sites, companies are discovering the real names and e-mail addresses of these anonymous bad-mouthers. Cease And Desist In fact, it has been reported that some stock chat sites are getting so many requests for the identities of certain posters that they may be forced to hire a staff just to process them. Some sites apparently try to notify the poster that they are about to be unmasked, while others do not. It is believed that America Online in particular has a long-standing policy of giving its users two weeks notice before it responds to a subpoena for personal information. Nonetheless, in most cases, the legal counsel for the inquiring company will warn posters that a failure to cease and desist will result in a lawsuit. Usually, this warning is enough to frighten off the average online faultfinder, especially after they calculate the high cost of retaining legal counsel. It is this silencing of those critical of corporate America that has many advocates of the First Amendment bent out of shape. They contend that such legal intimidation is really an infringement upon the unmasked chatters' freedom of speech. Still, companies claim that disgruntled former employers or people who are trying to benefit by driving down the price of the firm's stock are using aliases as a way to shield them from the law. Read 'Em And Weep Being a journalist, I find it somewhat awkward to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the conclusions of many of these companies. I have perused the message boards of dozens of financial sites and have found messages that range from being simply misguided to outright slanderous. Before the shield of the Internet existed, no person would dare air some of the accusations, rumors or untruths that I have seen scattered on chat boards, for fear of being sued. And rightfully so. Strange Phenomenon I've noticed a strange phenomenon that has developed in cyberspace. It is the false notion that somehow, anything goes on the Internet. The general consensus among many is that there is no such thing as personal responsibility online. Hogwash. Try and tell that to the next FBI agent who arrests somebody for trying to seduce a minor or transmit child pornography via the Internet. Own Up As a journalist, if I write something I can't put my name to, it means that I haven't really checked the facts or presented both sides of the story. If I make a mistake for some reason -- even innocently -- the party I unintentionally injure can sue me. It's plain and simple. That's why I'm very careful. Anonymous message posters should be too. What do you think? Let's talk about it.