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.

Biotech / Medical : Elan Corporation, plc (ELN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: William Partmann who wrote (1008)	7/13/2000 9:29:27 AM
From: biostruggle	Respond to of 10345

Best of luck William. Look into countersuing CSFB. California would be a good place to file.

To: William Partmann who wrote (1008)	7/13/2000 9:30:00 AM
From: dalroi	Respond to of 10345

Well well as a european i have to say i'm shocked by the csfb reaction 1/ messageboard often contain strong talk 2/ even i didnt understand why the analist rated eln a hold good results and good price direction perhaps all the people who didnt buy eln on his recommendation or sold it should think about missed opportunity this becomes too crazy anyway GOOD LUCK to the 11

To: William Partmann who wrote (1008)	7/13/2000 4:53:28 PM
From: Lance Bredvold	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10345

Mr. Partmann; I am amazed (perhaps flabbergasted would be a more appropriate word) that you are one of the people being charged. I always regarded you as a generous and open minded poster who went to a lot of trouble to keep this board active and productive. And I can't so far see what CSFB hopes to accomplish with this action, though I suspect that all of the full service brokerage and underwriting houses are beginning to feel like a little boy has begun a ball rolling by accusing the emperor of having no clothes. The net has certainly given a lot of us a way to judge the value of so much expensive advice which has been foisted on the public. Best wishes. And I'm sorry you are unable to post safely. Lance

To: William Partmann who wrote (1008)	7/13/2000 9:31:39 PM
From: Maven1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10345

To the Elan 11, who may become as well known as the Hollywood 10 in the Joe McCarthy era, and to their attorneys ---please consider setting up a website as a legitimate, authorized defense fund, and talk about the basic issue on every available chat room. This is an issue that deserves national coverage, on the web and in the press. Let me know where I can send my $50.

To: William Partmann who wrote (1008)	7/14/2000 11:28:48 AM
From: Fred Ross Tamor Hansen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10345

Put me down for $200. I don't even post on these boards very often and this still makes my blood boil! Such actions at this lawsuit should never go un-punished. Is there any possibility of or grounds for a counter suit? Best of luck to you and the rest of the defendants.

To: William Partmann who wrote (1008)	7/19/2000 7:42:18 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10345

Bill, sorry to see that you're in this mess. I am not an attorney, and please do not accept this as iron-clad legal advice. You should consult with an attorney for a true legal opinion on this matter. Nothing in this post should be taken by any interested or other party as indication of my personal feelings on this matter, other than I see it as a regrettable episode for all sides. Even though I am not an attorney, I do have some understanding the First Amendment, and when a person can and cannot claim to be libeled. If you can demonstrate that this person is a public person (and not a private person), then it is much more difficult for them to make a case against you and the others. A public person is one who has volunteered himself or herself into the public eye. It is arguable that this person does not meet that test in the normal performance of duty (in terms of analysis and commentary), since the firm's research is intended for private use. However, if this person has appeared on TV talk shows discussing the company or the industry that he/she covers, then he/she has volunteered himself/herself into the public domain. The same would go for being quoted in magazines. Public figures find it much more difficult to prove that they have been libeled, defamed, or slandered, because (the thinking is) they've opened themselves up to criticism to a degree. Just how much they can be criticized is probably relative to just how much of a public authority they've made of themself. HOWEVER, if this person is low-key, you'll have much more trouble making your case that they are a public figure. YET, if, for instance, this person is constantly quoted in magazines, and/or interviewed on TV, then it will be difficult for them to prove that they are not a public figure in regards to their participation in public discourse. Keep in mind that the alleged libel must be related to their public exposure (assuming there is any outside of the firm's private research) in order for you to be able to freely criticize under the First Amendment. In other words, you are entitled to criticize their opinions that are directly related to their public exposure, but not personal (non-public) matters. I will watch this case with interest, as I am sure that it will set a powerful precedent for the future on the Internet. In the meantime, I shall watch what I say in my own posting. Regards & Good Luck, LoF