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 : Anthony@Pacific Member Vote -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: A@P Trader who wrote (861)	10/9/1999 11:31:00 PM
From: WTMHouston	Respond to of 1638

What specifically about my post do you contend is wrong? Some of it? All of it? Perhaps you could cite me to some of the "Public Domain laws" you are referring to. That may help me figure out what you are talking about. A simple USC cite will suffice. I would be particularly interested in ones that say that a privately run business, with no government connection, cannot control how things are discussed within their business entity. <<and if its about Money or commerce that benefits the owners of the site, such as talking about Datek or GNET stock , there should be a disclaimer on those posts, that they are advertising, no different than teh paid Copmany profiles that are in each issue of Barrons.>> Perhaps I am just dense, but this sentence makes no sense to me. That said, I will take a stab at what it might be. First, last time I checked, paid subscribers to Barrons were not writing "company profiles" uncontrolled by Barrons. Indeed, I'll bet ya' a dime to a dollar that Barrons controls everything that get published in their magazine both content and advertising. Maybe I missed your point. Perhaps you are implying that when subscribers to SI talk about a company, they are advertising for that company? If that is the substance of your post, then I think you have some fundamental misunderstanding about the differences between commentary and advertising. If you will be a little clearer about what you mean, I will try and respond more directly. Troy

To: A@P Trader who wrote (861)	10/10/1999 12:23:00 AM
From: WTMHouston	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1638

APT: I'll even help you out in answering post 877. (for some of the "public domain law" you referred to). Here is a link to the United States Code. It is searchable. Try: public w/2 domain uscode.house.gov Don't think you will find what you are looking for, but if it is there, I would love to see it. Still waiting for some kind of reply.... I will gladly admit that I was wrong if you can point me to ANY part of the USC that says what you claim or says that I was wrong. Troy