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 : Zia Sun(zsun) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: StockDung who wrote (6733)	2/1/2000 8:13:00 PM
From: Sir Auric Goldfinger	Respond to of 10354

Then again, they may not be.

To: StockDung who wrote (6733)	2/1/2000 9:35:00 PM
From: Sir Auric Goldfinger	Respond to of 10354

Gee, I wonder what it was based upon?: "press release was not based on objective analysis of Ziasun's stock and value." Perhaps I ought to go back and read all of the results of those factual searches with links that were provided. Wonder if anyone would come up with a different conclusion....

To: StockDung who wrote (6733)	2/2/2000 10:16:00 AM
From: WTMHouston	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10354

<<may be false or may imply false facts>> I guess since the judge has approved and ordered the use of the word "may" as an indication that something may or may not be true depending on what the final facts ultimately show, it would therefore be acceptable to use the same "may" in expressing other views and opinions. For example: 1. "XYZ may be crims," instead of XYZ are crims.... 2. "Based on my research, XYZ may be full of crims" instead of XYZ is full of crims. 3. "XYZ may be fraudulently cooking the books" 4. "The court may have ordered me to make the retraction because my lawyer may not have showed up, but I may not have the same opinions as what I was ordered to retract and state may have occurred." The affirmative action ordered as part of a preliminary injunction may be a crock, er not legally valid, IMO. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to protect the status quo pending a final ruling on the merits: it is not to give a party any of the ultimate relief it may want. Hopefully, it will be remedied. Prior restraints of speech, even of potentially false speech, have never been approved by the Supreme Court. If one speaks falsely, then that person is liable for damages they cause. But, they cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, be prohibited from speaking in the first instance -- at least so long as it is not commercial speech. The TI can be challenged, even if the lawyer did not show up at the hearing. It should be. In the spirit of the moment, these may be my opinions. Troy