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 : THNS - Technest Holdings (Prev. FNTN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wally who wrote (5802)	9/14/1998 10:20:00 AM
From: De Peepster	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15313

Heyy Wallyman, It took a Canadian court to establish this precidant. I ponder the continued effects of NAFTA in that regard. Needless to say there are good things that are mixed with bad, sovereignty continues to perplex me in our new global environ, as far as the SEC and lack of a clear direction ( yes I know of the freekin hotline, woo woo, what a bunch of crap). The SEC has historically been a back looker in terms of action vs. a preventative body. ,, barbara P.S. thanks!!

To: Wally who wrote (5802)	9/14/1998 1:17:00 PM
From: Michael Baron	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15313

OT- Dear Wally, In the best of all possible worlds the media, or carrier, would be responsible for the contributions made to its vehicle. That can be done with newpaper reporters (see recent lawsuits against fabricators at Newsweek, USAToday, etc.), and TV news broadcasts, because the players are NOT anonymous and the organ takes responsibility because it is in its long-term commercial interest to do so: "We print the truth, and you can depend on it, so you buy our product." But today, speed of dissemination and the ability to be anonymous have far outstripped the ability to call anyone to task and back up their statements. Gullibility has not decreased in the face of this incredible volume of info, so those who feel "taken" want to lash out for having followed unsubstantiated advice. The flip side of this is that I, as an individual small investor, can play the game with the big boys on a much more level field than previously, and my sources of information have, month by month, exponentially increased over what had been available to me before ecommerce. Limit those who can participate in SI-type, open forum discussions with disclosure (or any other) requirements, and you are on a slippery slope toward restricting participation based on ANY criteria: Stock discussion group members wanted! White, male, annual income over $85,000, portfolio value over .5mil, married, 2 children in private school, wife member of Junior League, who drives Lexus sedan. Others need not apply. No negativity, please. As much as I hate wading through the repetitive, redundant, and counterproductive clutter that has clogged the thread recently, the alternative is really scary. Pleading for nonexistent financials from long-time posters (who are essentially assuming the high risk of this investment based on their own personal comfort level) in order to "protect their investment," after having said they don't have a position in FNTN is a perfect example of this kind of crap. But it comes with the territory. Maybe we'll live to see this problem and the solution evolve into something we like better. Maybe not. It doesn't really color the way I make investment decisions: I leave that to good DD, guts, and instinct. And help from my friends. I'll take the tradeoff, gladly. All the best, M.