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 : The truth about SI and IHUB -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mmmary who wrote (49)	6/2/2003 1:07:20 PM
From: Glenn Petersen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 124

The SEC probably just didn't want to go after an underage person. Now that they are suing Francois Goelo the bud who gave him part of the dd to post, I bet they're taking a closer look at Matt. If you really believe that, then you should package up your evidence and send it off to the SEC with a reference to Goelo. Given the high profile of the various stock threads and their potential for abuse, I suspect that the SEC would aggressively go after a board owner who stepped over the line, regardless of his age.

To: mmmary who wrote (49)	6/2/2003 1:08:25 PM
From: David Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 124

As far as I'm concerned, I posted the truth. The fact that nobody has sued you for it yet appears to be irrelevant, by your logic.

To: mmmary who wrote (49)	6/2/2003 1:44:15 PM
From: justaninvestor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 124

"The SEC probably just didn't want to go after an underage person." Why not - didn't they go after "The Whiz Kid" and nail him? Let's see if I can anticipate your answer - "The Whiz Kid" was high profile so of course the SEC had to go after him.

To: mmmary who wrote (49)	6/2/2003 4:57:08 PM
From: username	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 124

mmmary, you are incorrect. Prior to any further posts about this little upset you have, you might wish to review the legal definition, it is quite different from your suggested definition. lectlaw.com Suggesting that "you bet" that the SEC is investigating [fill in the name] for some alleged criminal act, here in a public forum, is very, very close to libel; your "truth" has nothing to do with it. If I were you, I would move along and not bother with this "truth" about SI and IHUB. I doubt you will ever be allowed to see the truth of what is undoubltedly a private business transaction that is none of your business. Additionally, when you "say" something that is defamatory, it is slander, not libel. Libel is written, similar to the post you wrote that I am responding to. You may also wish to review the Terms of Use on this site. As I understand it, it's a violation to start personally attacking the character of another member by publishing rumors and innuendo. Personally I feel you should be suspended from this site for your prior messages, but I don't own the site, so my opinion doesn't count.