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: Janice Shell who wrote (24643)	2/5/2000 1:09:00 AM
From: marcos	Respond to of 26163

Janice, that's insane, there's almost 21,000 posts over there ... an entire culture is growing up around the world's longest short squeeze, lol ... add those posts to this thread and the various rmil, tvsi, aree, etc threads and anybody trying to make sense of this in a hundred years is going to get eyestrain ... on the question of the sex of boats - la lancha is a smaller boat and feminine en castellano, while el barco is a sizeable ship and masculine, so as the boat she grow, she get to be a he ... on the other hand, el bote is smaller while la nave is bigger, and in this case as the boat he grow he get to be a she ... so clearly, boats swing both ways and you gotta watch 'em, just like people - Message 5630750 Misty-eyed tonight, roaming around SI in the last few hours before go2net destroys it forever, as they claimed to plan to do on Sunday in that PM everybody got ... we had some times, eh ... i've lost touch with this aznt story, but just caught a few posts by you and Pugs over there, looks like same old same old ... the laughs must be quite a few posts back, it's pretty boring today ... well of course, this post of yours is on the first, doh .. wow, four days without a post on the SI aznt thread ... ashes to ashes and dust to dust, i guess eh ... off to check out rmil and mtei now, talk about dust to dust, lol ... after they kill SI we won't be able to scan old posts using the hundred-ranges any more, and the old threads in the archives won't exist ... well the stocks were ephemera, it's kind of fitting, lol ... cheers [edit] - oops, just read that PM again, it says 'during the week of Feb. 7', not Sunday ... well, doesn't matter, they're determined to snuff it, and soon ... i plan to check out other sites, already post some on stockhouse.ca and canadastockwatch.com, going to look again at intelligentspeculator.com ... each have advantages and disadvantages, and there's no real Dryer SI out there yet.

To: Janice Shell who wrote (24643)	2/7/2000 12:37:00 AM
From: DSPetry	Respond to of 26163

janice, To much crap to read through on RB (Unless you have no life). Is this correct, did I hear you are inferring that Pugs wrote the AZNT suit we read a few days back?? The one that Pugs claims will be made public this week? ragingbull.com I'm saying I can prove that it was Pugs who initially put this pitiful complaint together, with a view to having it "fixed up" by Qualey. Whether Q really played along or not, I don't know. Deal with it. Dave

To: Janice Shell who wrote (24643)	2/8/2000 9:18:00 PM
From: Arcane Lore	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26163

A useful (IMO) primer on the liability of Internet chat boards for potentially defamatory messages posted at their site: ssbb.com An extract from the above: The Standard of Care for Electronic Information Providers [...]The Good Samaritan Provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Congress acted to limit the potential liability of computer services for defamation with the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In what appears to be a direct response to the Stratton Oakmont case, Congress included in the new Telecommunications Act a provision (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)) designed to protect "good samaritan" services which exercise some editorial control over user postings. This exception prevents a service from being treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another content provider, and further precludes treating such a service as a publisher or speaker simply because it makes voluntary, good faith efforts to restrict other content providers from posting objectionable material, regardless of whether or not such material is constitutionally protected. [...] The article goes on to discuss several cases brought subsequent to the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.