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 : Zulu-tek, Inc. (ZULU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brady B. who wrote (7519)	5/26/1998 9:05:00 PM
From: Brady B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

techstocks.com

To: Brady B. who wrote (7519)	5/26/1998 9:08:00 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18444

I would love to see Hayton sue Wired. I think we should form a shareholders group as an aside party in the action. A lot of folks, who had nothing to do with anything that happened in the past, got hit real bad by the slur journalism. In fact, I sold half of my holdings at the time. I didn't want to sell. Had I sold everything I would have taken a real beating. But I knew, because of Wired's bad angle of exposure that people would flee for the exits. And they did. I've since built back into a strong position. But it is possible that what she was referring to was something else that's in the courts having to do with chat rooms and message boards, having nothing to do with Zulu. Heck, if we're considered journalists, I'll take my press pass right now and go to all of the rock n' roll concerts and movie debuts. But I'd give up all those concerts and movies just to return this stock to where it was originally headed. I'm not a happy camper when it comes to Wired. I've worked in the media before, both as a writer (sports) and as a subject (politician), and I know a one-sided story when I see one. Wired presented a whooper of a slant! I firmly believe in its right to print what it wants, but I also believe it must face the consequences if it goes out of bounds. And out of bounds, I feel, Wired went. My primary criticism was it made no clear attempt to balance the criticism with alternative viewpoints of any kind. If the principles targeted in the story wouldn't comment, Wired still should have attempted to balance the piece by presenting comments that would have included public record comments, from Hayton or his attorneys, that exist within the courts, the SEC, company documents or elsewhere. Perhaps even a fair sampling of comments from shareholders who believed differently. I note that the rag eventually got Matty G to comment, but he's been all over the board himself, so there was little or no balance there. I guess this court case, whatever it is the IR spokesperson was referring to, is something else we can wait to learn about. Oh, just out of curiosity, did everyone call IR all at once today? Somebody must have made some contacts, besides Aleta. What's the skinny?

To: Brady B. who wrote (7519)	5/26/1998 10:03:00 PM
From: Jon Tara	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18444

Brady, my take on the IR comments to Aleta was simply that they are aware of a court case that will test the notion that a person posting on an online forum acts in the capacity of a journalist. I'm not sure what the impact of that is - I would guess that it involves a "false representation" on the part of the "journalist", with some company alleging that they wouldn't have given out certain information if they'd known it would be published, and were somehow damaged. I don't know if there are any specific laws or regulations about this.