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 : Amazon Natural (AZNT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hogger who wrote (24147)	10/22/1999 11:59:00 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26163

OK, one issue down, one to go... Here's the deal with settlement hearing. First off, yes, the proceedings themselves are supposed to be confidential as Janice has told you. However, the final settlement terms are NOT-- unless, of course, both parties agree they said terms will be kept confidential. Do you have any evidence the settlement terms (if indeed a settlement was reached) are confidential? Don't you think you should know these things before foaming at the mouth about Janice violating a court order? - Jeff

To: Hogger who wrote (24147)	10/23/1999 9:27:00 AM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

That is without dispute, except that Jancie now wants to play little Miss Understood and is trying to give a different spin on her posts by dwelling upon her inclusion of a caveat with her post. Wrong again, Hogger. I posted that I'd heard a settlement had been reached. While the proceedings of ENE meetings are confidential, their results are not. Tell me how much "information received" Pugs has posted, and without ever characterizing it as such? now, if you wish to continue this exchange, we will either do it on RB, where it all started and there is a clear trail, or that's it .... Are the memory lapses getting worse? I first posted about the matter here, and then reposted at RB hours later. You posted about what you quite clearly said was a call you made--no qualifications or caveats at all--here, not at RB: ...When I spoke with A Mann's attorney earlier today, he said that there had been no agreement, and that both the Judge and the Magistrate agreed with him that Andy should be able to have the summary judgement set aside any time he wanted to. Now if there turns out to be no agreement, Jancie, you will look rather stupid and if A Manns attorney is right, then you will have obviously posted a rather misleading statement... Message 11669379 I see nothing in this that suggests you were attempting to make me "fall for" a "red herring", as Pugs much later said. You appear, in fact, to be trying to make me look bad by presenting what you were told by the attorney in question. I could go on about the meaning of what you said you were told, but never mind. The real point here is: did you make that call or not? You haven't said categorically that you didn't, you know.