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 : GUMM - Eliminate the Common Cold -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Bob who wrote (4478)	5/23/2003 6:11:06 PM
From: RockyBalboa	Respond to of 5582

A mmmary a day... ...keeps the scammers away... LOL

To: SI Bob who wrote (4478)	5/25/2003 12:32:20 PM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5582

Hi, Bob...nice to see you back on Silicon Investor. I'm certainly not going to defend Mike because clearly he got carried away with the number of times that he posted ZiaSun's press release concerning the settlement with Floyd (TruthSeeker) in their cybersmearing lawsuit. However, all one has to do is look at the message list of this thread to see that Floyd posted more than 50 of the last 58 messages over a short period of time. Many of them are redundant. The preponderance of them are irrelevant, at least to any reasonable person. Some of them contain harassing language such as "con man", "fraud man", "part of the MOB", etc. Should it matter that the target of some of these harassing comments doesn't post on this thread? It is still harassment, and in fact it looks like his posts were intended to harass this company's investors. There's no doubt that Floyd trashed up this thread with irrelevant junk, which led Mike to get out of hand. So it begs the question. Do Floyd's posts not constitute spam and harassment? Is there a double standard on Silicon Investor? Why do some people appear to get preferential treatment over others? And by the way, I disagree with deleting all of Mike's posts related to the ZiaSun settlement. It is relevant to counter the BS from Floyd, and I think that you should have left at least one of them, if not a number equal to the number of times that Floyd posted something redundant. It seems to me that Floyd is the one with the tainted background, not the people that he refers to as con men and frauds. To the best of my knowledge, the people that Floyd calls con men have never been sued for any securities violations much less settled any such claims or had judgments levied against them. By not allowing someone to expose the ZiaSun settlement so they can come to their own conclusion about Floyd is wrong in my opinion. Would it constitute spam if someone else posts a link to that story? By the way, I didn't see any vulgar or profanity in Mike's post, unless I missed it. Best regards, Dan

To: SI Bob who wrote (4478)	10/20/2003 3:14:07 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

SI BOB, A SI SECURITY QUESTION HERE. IN MTXX SLAPP SUIT THEY SAY QUOTE: " 12. PERSONS WHO WISH TO PUBLISH INFORMATION ON YAHOO AND SILICON INVESTOR MESSAGE BOARDS MAY DO SO BY USING MORE THAT ONE ALIAS. AS A RESULT, THE TRUE IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS PUBLISHING INFORMATION ON THESE BOARDS IS UNKNOWN TO OTHER READERS." IS THIS TRUE? ARE POSTERS SIGNING UP ON SI USING DIFFERENT ALIAS'S? I THOUGHT YOU HAD A SYSTEM AGAINST THIS SORT OF THING WHICH TRACKED A USER SIGNING UP UNDER THE SAME ISP?