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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Crystallex (KRY) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Syncrude who wrote (9484)	7/24/1998 10:31:00 AM
From: Avalon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10836

Thanks but no thanks.... I had assumed that this thread was to discuss KRY. I have been proven wrong. The assorted mix of characters whose posts I have read here is actually quite amusing...lets see...we have a have a pseudo-journalist who can do nothing but spread lies and innuendo to try to discredit other posters and cast suspicion on the company....we have that same pseudo journalist who apparently cannot come up with his own material so he has to steal it from private communications (many are still wondering what his purpose is..besides destroying KRY threads), we have two or three people who have no position in KRY, and from what I understand, never did, but like to criticize the company, the directors, as well as info from a journalist from Caracas (the reasons for this seeming waste of time totally escape me), we have an ex-shareholder who asks why people are talking about a POS..and I have to one wonder why he even bothers to comment, we have another poster whose main purpose is to slam Carson...(why, I don't know...especially since he says he never trusted Carson in the first place, so I would assume that he never made decisions based on Carson's info) Yeesh....we have most everything here to consider this an anti-KRY thread or a Carson bashing thread...it seems that there is no reason for anyone who is actually looking for speculations, opinions and/or discussions about KRY to even be here..... To the three that I communicated with...Carl, DanS and Charred...although I do not understand why you waste time reading the comments here and posting, thanks for your help and opinions!!! Valid dissenting opinions to counter some overly optimistic speculations about KRY are always welcome but on this thread, any rational discussion about the future of KRY is scarce. I will keep reading , hoping that there will eventually be some pertinent discussion...but until then, thanks but NO thanks... Later, AV

To: Syncrude who wrote (9484)	7/24/1998 10:50:00 AM
From: Jerry Collins	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10836

Patrick -- Besides displaying an utter lack of appreciation for what constitutes libel (I refer to your postings to me on another forum), you continue to advertise the fact that you have an utter ignorance of what constitutes copyright infringement. Roy's e-mail service is in no way different from Bob Bishop's Fax-Alert service (except, of course, in terms of the quality of material). We've been summarizing Mr Bishop's Fax-Alert and newsletter for many years; other news services constantly publish the gist of stories found in leading news organizations. I've referred to the New York Times' Pentagon Papers series as an example of when newspapers summarize their competitors' work. Just because Roy Carson says you can't take one word out of his e-mail dispatches does not mean he has this right. Does he have a patent on each individual word in his stories? Of course not. While we may not reproduce all or large sections of his material, he cannot prevent someone from saying: "This is what Roy Carson reported." If we are wrong in this, I'm sure Mr Carson would have followed through with his threat of legal action. But, like Crystallex's libel suit against Manuel Asensio, it appears to be all bluster and no delivery. The bottom line is, Mr Carson does not want to defend his body of work, and you happen to agree. So what? Pat, like Mr Carson, you have displayed that you possess only a dim understanding of journalism, but this fact does not appear to prevent you from offering your uninformed postings on the rules of the industry. Taking advice from you on journalistic affairs is like taking Roy Carson's advice on the Las Cristinas court case -- or taking Frank Lostrocca seriously when he says KRY is a $50 to $60 stock (okay, that was some time ago). Jerry Collins CSW

To: Syncrude who wrote (9484)	7/24/1998 5:13:00 PM
From: excalibur	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

I believe you are wrong! As long as Jerry makes mention of the source, and of course he/they paid for the service, nothing in Canadian or US law prohibits publicly mentioning a summarization of even copyrighted material. As Jerry has stated, this occurs all the time and his example of The New York Times Pentagon Papers stories being summarized by others is correct. There is no violation of any laws here! You are upset, perhaps, because this reminds you of Carsons BS'ing and how you fell for it!? N'est pas? Perhaps you even wasted money on his "service"? And let us not forget psouami, that you had a valuation of $12-$13 on KRY with a SCJ victory and didn't sell at 90+% of that price! As I said before, at least I expected, with victory, $25+ for KRY. That is my excuse for not having sold! (You and I can also claim stupidity! After all, we both warned that we were relying on a decision from a Venezuelan Court!!!) <:( excalibur