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 : American International Industries Inc. OTC BB Symbol EDII -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: T. Hamilton who wrote (366)	7/11/1998 11:18:00 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4814

What a load of carp, Mr Attorney-at-Law. The broadcasting to every pumpster wingnut on the internet of the phone number and address of a poster with a critical viewpoint cannot reasonably be construed as anything other than a direct physical threat. And no amount of your weasel words will polish that turd.

To: T. Hamilton who wrote (366)	7/11/1998 11:25:00 PM
From: BigDaddyMac	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4814

Hamilton, thank you very much for your post, it is nice to have new blood on the thread that has sat back and watched this debacle develope, but don't worry anytime now janice will be over to say something to you. As for the second post that you mentioned that SI BOB posted this morning, if anybody has it i would like to read it as it is very urgently needed for an investigation in abuses by SI. You're quote from Bobs post, " maybe people are upset with Janice because she is telling the truth" Excuse me but isn't that favoritism, not even to mention more legal terms and issues. I liken that to the school teachers pet even though it poops on the floor and not outside. This makes me sick to my stomach, all information that i collect is being forwarded to the proper people. mitchell Oh yes, and i completely agree that SI BOB saying that Janice was suspended earlier this year is a complete release of private and personal information that i'm sure they are liable for. I was suspended without any reason and i have still not heard back from the SI administration on why a few weeks ago. Shows you what kind of operation they are running.

To: T. Hamilton who wrote (366)	7/12/1998 1:32:00 AM
From: PaulB	Respond to of 4814

Thank you Mr. Hamilton for taking the time to post. I agree with you completely and find it good to here that I am of sound mind on this topic. Once in awhile we need a reality check and am thankful to here my thoughts echoed from someone that has a working knowledge of the law. Paul.

To: T. Hamilton who wrote (366)	7/12/1998 4:03:00 AM
From: CatLady	Respond to of 4814

So many words to say so little.

To: T. Hamilton who wrote (366)	7/12/1998 8:25:00 AM
From: AF	Respond to of 4814

Your post has been up for 8 hours, BOB must still be asleep. willing to give you the $200, just to see if they let you join. rumor has it janice is working to get me suspended? maybe when BOB wakes up. sold my position in this stock, life is toooooo short!

To: T. Hamilton who wrote (366)	7/12/1998 9:40:00 AM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 4814

Just a few comments: He further stated that Ms. Shell had been suspended in the past (now I believe, that is a clear example of invasion of privacy, to post on an open thread, information on punishments given to members, it is not shown in the terms of service, that information about any punishments given out, shall be published). Not really. You can go read all about it on the Warning thread, where warnings and suspensions handed out to me and a number of others are discussed. Second, it was stated that this Mr. Ken M was acting in a malicious manner, yet the posts do not support this claim, I believe if I read Ms. Colleen's post correctly, it appears that Mr. Ken M has had Ms. shell's information for several days, yet chose not to post it while under the assumption that is was indeed Ms. Shell's home info, and indeed only upon being told that is a business location, which was involved in manipulation of EDII stock, did he post this information. If this is true... My emphasis: you raise a crucial issue. In point of fact, nothing about the emails Ken received--he posted one its entirety several days before the other night's little drama--is true, except for my address and phone number. Allegations of illegality are involved in this rubbish. I call it libel; you call it whatever you like. Did Ken make any effort at all to confirm the "information" he received? Well, nooooo. Was he made suspicious by all the attention given to "proving" that I was "really" a man? Noooooo... The bottom line: he irresponsibly published malicious lies. I believe the silencing of members that opposed Ms. Shell... Opposition to my ideas and opinions is one thing; these people were engaged in a campaign of personal attack. You say you've been reading the thread "occasionally". If you'd been a regular you'd know that a number of the players have been consistently nasty, in an entirely personal and unsubstantive way, for weeks. And as noted above, I really do tire of repeated utterly unfounded allegations of illegal activities on my part. I don't libel people, I qualify my statements when necessary, and I provide a source for any information I copy to the threads on which I participate. It might be a good thing if everyone took care to do the same; no doubt it would serve to make the threads more useful, and to raise the level of discourse from locker room to investment forum.

To: T. Hamilton who wrote (366)	7/12/1998 12:11:00 PM
From: David Lawrence	Respond to of 4814

Sir or Madame, that is probably most long-winded load of BS that I have ever read at this site. Your repeated allegations of collusion are entirely without merit and are backed up with what I believe to be fabricated evidence. If you really read a message where the site administrator made those alleged comments, you can easily search your browser cache and produce the message even if it has been deleted. >>It is no surprise that Ms. Shell and associates seem to enjoy a sort of Carte Blanche on SI, and it does appear for good reason. While I disagree entirely with your basis in support that statement, I believe that there is some minor degree of latitude given to members who have made positive contribution (even if contrarian or controversial) to the site, versus say a new or trial member who suddenly appears hyping a particular stock or "bashing" other members. This is a content driven site; lurkers who don't contribute content are of little value to the enterprise and are of no value to the membership. However, there is no Carte Blanche, as I have also see such members receive warnings and/or suspensions when the line of allowable conduct was crossed.

To: T. Hamilton who wrote (366)	7/12/1998 3:45:00 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4814

Ah, making stuff up now, are we, Mr Attorney-at-Law; "a Mr. Bob from SI Admin., did publish two posts this morning, in which on the second post, he made two statements, in which I am deeply disturbed..." From SI Bob #reply-5169734 "I would very much like to see a copy of that message, including the date and time, since I know I have not written the purported message and nobody could have posted it as me." So how about it, Mr Attorney-at-Law ..... present your evidence, or be known as a liar.

To: T. Hamilton who wrote (366)	7/13/1998 4:49:00 AM
From: Mr.Manners	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4814

SI & Janice acting collusively? Never. had Mr. Ken M been malicious toward Ms. Shell it seems reasonable that he would have posted Ms. Shells information when he first received it, and not several days later. K-K-K-Ken M. is a cop.. They know enough to never act on info they receive without further substantiation. If not, they lose their job or are demoted in rank. His intent was obvious; and clearly set forth in his maliciously repeated posts designed to invade Janice's privacy. He 'thought it was a business'.....any cop giving that as either reason or excuse would not long be working. And being that he is a cop is more familiar with the ramifications of acting so carelessly. The reasonable conclusion is that his familiarity with police reports led him to state that he had done nothing about the address in order not to be found guilty of exactly what has occurred: that he recklessly exposed Janice with deliberation. After K-K-K-Ken M.. was called a creep I am sure that there were many of us once again wondering at Janice's ability for self-control in the face of deliberate and repeated taunts whose excessive personal attacks and vileness only demonstrate the inability of the posters to either read, inform themselves, or show anything but cowardice.. And that goes for those who did not speak out against what occurred as well. I am Janice's friend, and supporter. I do not have any special status here. When confronted by personal attacks on Janice, or anyone else of whom I am aware, resulting from posting an opinion that some other poster does not like, I will defend her. If the person is toasted due to their own abusive and emotionally violent posts, then I am glad. It means their moronic harassment has found a stop for however brief a time. I believe the silencing of members that opposed Ms. Shell, by terminating them, shows a dangerous precedent, and something that my money will not be a part of. To the members terminated, you have my sympathies for what happened, and be advised their are other threads that do not act like Nazi Germany, in the way it treats its members. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You must be aware that, as Janice has said, their abusiveness has gone on for weeks, perhaps longer; and that it just came to full fruition that day and night. I see SI, as an immature, poorly run organization, that appears to be more interested in taking revenge out for their friends, than looking out for legitimate investors. SI is anything but immature, or poorly run. No revenge was taken - the excessiveness of the posters who were either terminated or banned was responded to in a fair manner. Your statements argue to the point of inciting certain SI members to take action against SI, and suggest that the actions taken against Janice, and myself, that evening were just fine and dandy. This would show a favorable bias towards anyone not associated with Janice. You seem to indicate a projection of sympathies for certain tactics, as well as a preference to establish them by your allegation to Nazi Germany, despite how you oppositely utilize the metaphor in your statement. Meaning that you make it sound as though any tactics are ok - because you fail to recognize the utter complacent tripe served up endlessly by those posters who were banned in whatever fashion. But just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, neither are moral fallacies anywhere acceptable. In this, your arguments are specious, without foundation or substance, and thus collusively tied to those who made those hateful postings.