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.

Technology Stocks : XYBR - Xybernaut -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (4067)	4/25/2000 7:21:00 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6847

Hi Scott, Very interesting post. It will amaze many people to see whether a pattern of manipulative behavior emerges. As I've written in the past, this is an evolving area of law. In my opinion, a party or parties who issue(s) a so-called "press release" or posts an "expose" on one of these boards, having first traded or selectively disclosed, has arguably violated Securities laws and regs. As this evolves further, there may be attendant criminal issues and civil liabilities for which there may be enforcement by private individuals who have been harmed by manipulative conduct. The internet is a wonderful medium of communication. However, users should realize that they have certain responsibilities that are not protected by freedom of speech. Not having a position in a security does not insulate one from violations of law. No, I'm not talking about the average poster. When you or I post we are giving an opinion. My posts are fairly worthless and I don't try to go around announcing that an expose is coming, paying to release it to the "press" or the business wire, after selectively leaking it to others. In the law, believe it or not, there are standards of reasonableness that guide a finder of fact in making a determination. In my opinion, a jury or a judge could clearly distinguish between the ordinary poster giving his opinion, which is protected by the First Amendment, and that so-called "truthdetective" or the like, who apparently has a commercial and manipulative intent and whose words would constitute "conduct" and not "protected speech."

To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (4067)	4/26/2000 4:11:00 AM
From: Wolff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6847

Lemon, you chose to be the self-admitted charlatan of dishonest sophistry. As I suspected you would not address straight factual questions posed. Instead you chose to be the buffoon. If you are able to put together a list of questions, that like the one I put together, which is devoid of personalities issues, without presuppositions of the reader?s views, and sticking to straight facts or common impressions?I would responds to that list, as I have told you before. I have not desire to be placed into a false dilemma and have to explain why all the possibilities that are offered are false. I will not address questions like those offered before, which look something like: "We all know <insert opinion> and considering that you still feel <insert assumption>, how can you explain <insert non factual statement>?" However, if you list out an honest straight question I will do my best to respond. If you are unable to both, respond to a list of straight questions already offered, and generate a honest list of questions, I believe that even you would agree, that you would be a hypocrite. Its up to you now Lemon, can you be real? hasta