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 : Amazon Natural (AZNT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bmart who wrote (3745)	9/5/1998 11:12:00 AM
From: Mr. Forthright	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

bmart, thanks for all your posts. Now let's get back to basics. Are you ready to commit to providing full and truthful answers in the future instead of twisting everything everybody says to support your theories?

To: bmart who wrote (3745)	9/5/1998 11:29:00 AM
From: jhild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

Maybe better send your attorney to a dictionary.

To: bmart who wrote (3745)	9/5/1998 12:19:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 26163

No, the verbage the attorney who procures the objectionable posts used was "actionable slander". We really need some better attorneys here. jhild is of course right: slander is spoken defamation, libel is written defamation. There are, however, those who argue that internet communications have more the character of spoken than written communications, so when referring to such charges, lawyers normally cite both slander and libel. BUT in this particular case I would contend that "actionable" is redundant; one assumes that all genuine slander is potentially actionable.