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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Rocky Mountain Int'l (OTC:RMIL former OTC:OVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael P. Weber who wrote (35509)	1/11/1998 6:16:00 AM
From: FTJoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

I was answering your questions about the posting behaviour in my post from before, of course, I wasn't very clear about it: To answer your questions, is it fair, I don't think so, is it ethical, apparently not, is it irresponsible, I don't know. What I do know is only my opinion that it does not warrant a civil suit. Okay, so let's say I wouldn't be able to get the info from the MMs, I guess the next question might be, if the info is correct, then what's the problem? Trust me when I say I understand where alot of folks are coming from with this. The short answer to my very own question is the problem lies in the fact that it seems to be a concentrated effort on Michael's part that goes beyond supplying information and appears to be intent on tanking up the investment. I definitely understand that. But if you look at it from his perspective, and consider, as I do, that he is simply a zealot, his motives become a little less sinister. Arguing that we received correct information from a broker does not make for a very strong case or make us look very astute. ;-) Make no mistake, there are other cases where I thought Michael stepped over the line as a nay and presented information in a less than straight-forward manner. I thought the "bomb" he dropped about the shares he had calculated out was a joke(after I finally caught on to what he was doing). That was when he was going through the 10K and figuring out what OVIS/RMIL owed in shares to other parties. Very flawed and mis-leading argument. When he first mentioned it, only a few understood it was really just a red herring, but he was "in your face" with his numbers. Not very honorable, but really had nothing to do with being a broker, he was just being a jerk then(IMO). ;-) What I really would like to know are the grounds of the suit. Is it suspected ties with shorts or only the fact that a suit can be made against someone posting negative comments because they are a broker?