To: Puck who wrote (2879 ) 4/24/2001 3:11:03 PM From: silversoldier a/k/a SI Sy Read Replies (1) | Respond to Puck, I am well aware of the proxy statement, its contents, generally, and the reference to Digeo, in particular. Indeed, two days ago on the INSP/GNET thread, in response to an inquiry from The O, I confirmed that the precise language, quoted by you, does appear at the bottom of page 19 and at the top of page 20 of the proxy statement. There is a link to the proxy statement at the INSP IR web site. That, too, is noted by me on the other thread in a post yesterday or the day previously. I do not wish to belabor the point on that or this thread any further, except to emphasize an observation about the oddity of the language in the the cited portion of the proxy statement. Do you not deem it peculiar that for an event which occurred in October 1999, all references to the Digeo relationship are inconclusive, inasmuch as they pertain to events which may or may not transpire in the future? E.g., "On October 1, 1999, Go2Net entered into an agreement with Charter Communications and Vulcan Ventures to form Digeo, Inc. (formerly known as Broadband Partners), a joint venture."; "Digeo intends to provide..."; "Vulcan Ventures will own 55.2%, Charter Communications will own 24.9% and Go2Net will own 19.9% of Digeo's capital stock."
