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 : Plastics to Oil - Pyrolysis and Secret Catalysts and Alterna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: the_big_guy who wrote (4377)	1/3/2011 10:25:12 AM
From: scion	Respond to of 53574

I agree that the onus of proof is on the complainant. Whoever that is needs clarification, but I can see this fizzling out as Bordynuik realizes that the two-edged sword of discovery is going to cut both ways, just as it will in the Kaplanis lawsuit. Bordynuik needs to reassess his priorities and start acting like the CEO of the company, instead of making one mistake after another and tying the company up in needless lawsuits.

To: the_big_guy who wrote (4377)	1/3/2011 10:29:52 AM
From: 1Coffeehound	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

Maybe not. The SEC is stretched thin, and can't respond to all charges made against these scams; however, a company which brings a bogus suit in hopes of silencing a critic and gets its butt shellacked in court often puts itself on the SEC's radar screen. Obviously, paper prophet isn't intimidated. Bordynuik would be wise to slink away with his tail between his legs; however, as I've noted in the past, he's the dumbest genius I've ever seen. <His tactic, of arguing he is right, while valiant, is a waste of time IMO.>