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 : Caussa Capital (formerly Antares) T.CAU -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Markoff who wrote (4127)	8/8/1998 1:52:00 AM
From: CIMA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4718

Alan, I can't believe it, we're actually going to agree on something! As soon as an attack becomes personal IMO, you become responsible for your comments on a public forum like SI or in the press. John has every right to say whatever he wants about the company, which is an entity, but not a person. He must be held accountable, as we all must, for statements made about others that are not supported by fact. The world is already too Darwinian for my liking. Unsupported vicious personal attacks should be challenged and apologies sought. John is a straight-shooter with an unrelenting lust for identifying the bottom-line. He is not a bad or evil person. I hope he doesn't change that part of himself. He just has to keep the line in sight at all times and not cross it unless he has the facts to back it up.

To: Alan Markoff who wrote (4127)	8/8/1998 6:24:00 PM
From: Ally	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4718

>>With all due respect I think you and others are missing the point. The comments by John was directed at a PERSON a big difference.<< No Alan, it is you who don't understand. There is no difference whether John's comment was directed at a person or at the company.. libel is libel. Also, Dennis is not threatening to sue John personally, Antares is. It's pedant to argue as if there is a difference. >>If you picked up your daily Newspaper and you saw the same comments about you being published on a daily basis would you attempt to do something about it<< A chat group is not a daily newspaper. Big difference! One is professional, the other is evolving, where laws have not yet been tested. Again, you're missing the point. >>http://www3.techstocks.com/~wsapi/investor/reply-5421973 detnews.com Why the comments? Whats the point? Could it not have been handled in an adult manner as regards to questioning management<< You Antares fans on this thread.... why do you keep reproducing John's posts. We're not daft! We already read what he wrote. Are you trying to put John deeper in the muck that he already finds himself in??? Are you trying to show us again and again how bad he is? There's no need to... save yourself the time. We already know he's a bad dud when it comes to postings. BUT THAT DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE KIND OF ACTION ANTARES IS RESORTING TO!!!! >>I am not saying you are wrong and I am right.......... but I feel this has nothing to do with SI.<< Of course it does have something to do with our SI, and I've already explained it several times. Let me try again: 1. Freedom of speech is what chat groups and SI are about. 2. There will be many disgruntled people who will cross the libel line when they are involved in stock discussions of a stock that is not doing well. 3. As a CEO of the company under attack, you take the high road, and resolve libel problems without using the ultimate weapon of using corporate funds to sue an individual. 4. If you as an SI member allow trigger happy companies like Antares to use this ultimate weapon to stifle criticisms, then more companies will follow suit. Eventually the SI forums will ultimately become useless. They will just consist of fans like yourself singing praises of management all the time. Tell me what are the points above that you don't understand, and I'll be please to elaborate further.