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.

Technology Stocks : Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (6021)	1/24/2007 2:31:01 PM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8420

Apparently, at least Bloomberg agrees with my interpretation: What tangent on God's Blue Earth are you off on now. You stated.. The Judge MADE IT CLEAR it was not a ruling on the merit of the RIAA's case, and only on whether there is a sufficient case to warrant a trial. I asked you to present you data to support your thesis that the Judge made it clear... In which you responded with reciting tort law. "A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) requires the district court to accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true and make all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." siliconinvestor.com In which I responded: "Please provide us the direct quotation from Judge Batts that led you to the conclusion that she made it clear that she was not ruling on the merit of the RIAA's case? You made this statement in a format in which suggested that I had not read the Judge's opinion. Yet, you now claim that Judge stated something that I have seen no proof of any such statements." siliconinvestor.com To which you responded with another LIE and stated.. "That was a quote from Judge Batts." siliconinvestor.com Which is ANOTHER LIE. I recited the context of the ruling, and Judge Batts did not quote that statute. As a matter of fact. The Judge went on to mimic the the RIAA's merits of the case. "``By broadcasting and storing this copyrighted music'' that consumers can later download, ``XM is both a broadcaster and a distributor, but it is only paying to be a broadcaster,'' the judge ruled." Which is what Count 2 of the RIAA's case states. Now, who is apt to be right? PCSTEL, or Bloomberg? LOL!! I'd go with me, personally.. After all, you know how many investors that have lot their a$$e$ have said the same thing? Now , who is apt to be right? PCSTEL, or Analyst X! In the end.. Analyst X was WRONG, and I was correct. *ANYONE can FILE for protection, but receiving it requires a showing of viability.* WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! When you file for Creditor protection, you automatically receive it.. There is no qualifications requiring viability for the receipt of Creditor protection. Just as there is no requirement to present a path to profitibility in acceptance of a Plan of Reorganization.. Believe me son, Bankruptcy proceedings are my speciality. And so it goes, PCSTEL