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: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (1510)	10/12/1999 1:49:00 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 1638

Welcome back, Anthony! This process has certainly allowed many people to gain a better understanding of one another. In the end, it was fairly straight forward; SI made it clear that they reserve the right to exercise their subjective judgement as to how they interpret violation of TOU's (someone obviously has to). But they decided to incorporate a popularity vote (presumably as a measurement of value) into their decision making process as a (pragmatic) test. Clearly, the contractual obligations of the purchaser are far more susceptible of violation than those of the seller... If I may be permitted an observation: Sarcasm, irony, and other ploys may often serve to embellish an argument. This is good. However, whenever I catch myself being simply rude...I remind myself that this is a sign of insecurity. This is true whether one drives a porshe, or a horse and buggy. If the world was to live or die by the contumely that has been bandied about on this thread, well, I think the millennium will cut loose the wolf. L. passed on some thoughts to me. Thank you, and good trading. Barry

To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (1510)	10/12/1999 2:10:00 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Respond to of 1638

Anthony@Pacific <i?Didn't think Id be putting on my hard hat so soon after getting back, I do my best to be polite and rational. I believe that his target was wishful thinking. #reply-10818242 However foolish, it doesn't make it criminal. And the way that the sentence is written is not a clearly a statement of a buyout. The second part of the sentence "before it is diluted to 35 cents a share as you predict" changes the meaning of the sentence from a clear statement to that of a conditional statement. He wasn't the first person to hint at a buyout of IRID. And I had certainly heard similar rumblings elsewhere on SI. #reply-10465321 Why did he says it will happen? Why, and what was he trying to accomplish by such a post, without answers to these questions one can only speculate as to wwhat was really going on. You make a very good point here "one can only speculate". IMO you speculating what his motive is is not enough to be taking the drastic step of turning someone in to the SEC. You could have quelled his prediction very effectively without taking that step. The unfortunate thing about the position that I have taken is that it may appear that I am on the side of the crims and touts. This is absolutely not the case. Much like the situation that A@P Trader is experiencing, I think that it is wrong to use the threat of legal action to quiet the other side when there is no clear justification. JXM