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 : Winspear Resources -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (7576)	8/6/1998 5:04:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 26850

I don't know what he said but I defend his right to say it too. I don't think I said a litigable thing about WSP. One guy IS threatening to sue me over remarks I made on SI but it is unrelated. Somehow I don't think he will. On the Well, the famous San Francisco pre-net dial in posting site the motto was "you own your own words". They allowed anything.. language included and only kicked off people after months and months of unbelievable abuse and hundreds of complaints. This was a nuisance factor and could be said to hafve nmothing to do with content. If the liability is handled correctly SI is in the clear. Prodigy made some bad mistakes by patrolling content. Once they had set themselves up as policeman they could not wriggle out of responibility for posts. By being laissez faire you can avoid that. So freedom of speech is the preferred path towards lessening liability. Threatening to sue and actually launching an expensive suit are two different things. BUT the group of posters on SI could afford to couter sue on 18th? amendment rights in the USA and personal harassment bases. A law suit would cos the company perhaps 150K. It ain't worth it. The SI people are lawyers and know that that is the case. But SLAPP silence suits are the common refuge of scamming companies. All they consists of is judge's orders to shut up.. all too common I am afraid.. You ahve to learn the language of libel I cross it of course. When I called Bob Middleton a scuzz monster I was safe. It is undefinable as a term. I would call the Antares people anti free speach scare mongering fuzzwhackers. Hideawee bully boy sharemeisters. Double dip pina colada sucking snitwonkers. Where's the money, fred? etc etc.. then segue to a story about Bernie Cornfeld. Nothing they can do about it. Intention to defame is trash. You have to defame an identifiable person with intentionally harmful things... EC<:-}

To: marcos who wrote (7576)	8/7/1998 5:10:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 26850

It's a gray area. I can't really say what is wrong with them. They play with Bruce McDonald which is BIG Toronto, now Vancouver money. I would not be surprised to see hugh ross and p ross in there, maybe even charlie stewart or fatman as he is known. they stab at seeming BIG projects with production potential. they play international politics with some people I know of. Perhaps they think they own the company. the mining promoter I like is joe mcdiarmid. nobody ever crossed him. shoulda hired him as my lawyer. you would see the t's crossed and the i's dotted on those mining deals and the fax backs in triplicate to make your head spin.

To: marcos who wrote (7576)	8/7/1998 7:03:00 PM
From: bill718	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26850

Marcos, you and many others coming over to the ANZ thread as per your invitation on multiple threads have completely missed the point. It is not the right to post negative information that is being threatened by Antares....it is the on-going libel. You should stay out of this if you have to twist the facts.