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.

Pastimes : SI vs. iHub - Battle of the Boards Part 2 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tim Luke who wrote (1585)	5/9/2001 5:40:47 PM
From: Lola	Respond to of 5315

Doesn't he work for the SEC? I believe he also has an account here at SI under his name. Lola:)

To: Tim Luke who wrote (1585)	5/9/2001 5:44:05 PM
From: Lola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5315

John Reed Stark ... Member 3038133

To: Tim Luke who wrote (1585)	5/9/2001 5:59:51 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5315

Stark is apparently this guy: Member 3038133 Every single post he has made has been an announcement regarding SEC action against a company. The last post he made was an announcement re SEC action suspending trading in ECNC: Message 13189691 Now, interestingly enough, ECNC is a company that Matt Brown, founder (or one of two founders) of IHub, had an interesting little history with: Message 15665227 Brown had his own little site called "Club Fatt" (his SI moniker was/is Fatt Matt) which among other things hyped ECNC at one time.....when I called attention to Club Fatt about three weeks ago on version 1 of this thread, Brown immediately took the site down so nobody could see it. I found his behavior in taking the site down to be less than impressive.

To: Tim Luke who wrote (1585)	5/9/2001 7:07:57 PM
From: PatiBob	Respond to of 5315

Here's a nice little write up about him as well as a not so flattering picture. The one in People Magazine was much better. business2.com PB

To: Tim Luke who wrote (1585)	5/9/2001 7:11:00 PM
From: Dr.MensaWannabe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5315

You mean John Stark took your phone call? Would you care to share the content? I see Jenna still hasn't learned to use the word 'libel'. You would think with all of the legal terms she keeps throwing out that she would know the difference between slander and libel. She will really flip when she gets the notice of the TRO. I wonder what the ex-FBI agent thinks about all of this. He was taken off as a Director of her thread on IHUB. I wonder if they are still married? I suspect by next week she will wish there was nothing to the "BIG LAW SUIT." Will we see a true nervous break down if a class action suit is filed against Jenna, Market Gems, and Pristine? More rants from the madhouse: Oh sure.. they think they can fling darts and then HIDE in their cyber obscurity, BUT NOT ANY LONGER. Many people who have not come forward because they think they have no recourse but to retreat are going to see there is RECOURSE. I find it extremely audacious on their part that they think they can get away with anything and claim... "OH MY you are harming me and my family and my veil of secrecy".. what goes around comes around and the darts will get them. Its one thing when they have something concrete to back up their slander but they thrive on innuendo, anticipation of the "BIG LAW SUIT" and there is absolutely nothing. I have 10 cases of one of the posters here on IHUB and SI who has thrown 'class law suits' on people to intimidate them when they don't have a clue or have NEVER followed up any of their threats but only live on the intimidation.. THOSE DAYS ARE OVER. We are gathering many posters who are coming forward and the amount is incredible, virtually scores of posters have been intimidated by "class action law suits' and other junk while the intimidators are high-fiving each other with their victims. There are attorneys that specialize in INTERNET HARASSMENT. There are precedents and fines all over the country. Here is a stalking law in California: Cal. Civil Code § 1708.7 (a) A person is liable for the tort of stalking when the plaintiff proves all of the following elements of the tort: (2) "Credible threat" means a verbal or written threat, including that communicated by means of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct, made with the intent and apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her immediate family. (3) "Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. "Electronic communication" has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.