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.

Technology Stocks : InfoSpace (INSP): Where GNET went! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mod who wrote (367)	10/18/1998 5:27:00 PM
From: Charles Gryba	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28311

Gryb, could you post this, unedited, as a reply to: Message 6055643 ? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hi Dennis M., Thanks for the post. I like your style. Very few people are actually willing to show that they are listening, they just seem to want to talk. I thought I would PM my response so that you would know that I was not wanting to get into a pissing contest, rather, I'm actually interested in your thoughts. < <<Does the fear of termination and the selective enforcement of the Terms of Service have a chilling effect on discourse regarding gnet?>> You're posting, aren't you? Case closed. > I trust you don't expect me to take that as a serious answer. < <<Can anyone make a CURRENT and RATIONAL argument either pro or con regarding shorting gnet?>> I no longer have a position in GNET, so I can't help you there. > Why did you close it out? < <<Would termination of my account for asking certain questions about SI and gnet constitute a SEC violation?>> Of course not. Analysts get banned from company conference calls all the time for asking the wrong questions. > Good point. However, I still wonder if there are legal issues there. For example, CNBC is at least in part owned by GE. They seem to go to great lengths to demonstrate that GE has no impact on the content of CNBC. I'm sure there are other business reasons for this, but I'm trying to give you a feel for the direction of my initial thinking. Also, are they explicitly banned or is it more de facto. Here it would be explicit. < <<How does SI(gnet) handle their potential conflict of interest?>> No conflict that I can see. > Okay. < <<Has there ever been any posts deleted from this thread? >> If you violate the Terms of Use, you can get deleted. > My question is again, Has as there ever been any posts deleted from this thread? It is important for me to know when I'm reading the thread history. Otherwise it is sometimes like reading the edited transcripts of a trial, but you don't know it's edited. It can affect the conclusions that I draw. Also, I've discovered that, "If you violate the Terms of Use, you can get deleted," is either a false or meaningless statement at SI. Yes, I know it's on their web page, but the reality my friend, is quite different. Best regards, +++++++++++++++++ POSTSCRIPT <"case closed"> SI terminated my account while in the middle of discussion on their GNET thread. As you know GNET owns SI and the SI boys have an interest in more than 1,000,000 shares of GNET. At that very time the discussion involved potential conflicts of interest for SI. And, the potential for a chilling effect on truthful discussion regarding GNET. It was questioned if a chilling effect could be caused by the fear of termination of a subscriber and deletion of his posts, if they cut to close to home for the parent company or SI. Can you imagine what would happen if CNBC cut off a speaker while he was in the middle of blowing the whistle on GE? I'll tell you, I'm doing some serious research this weekend on shorting GNET. Only a business that is in fear for it's life would be willing to act in a way that might even have the appearance that this does. The telephone company never disconnected my phone for asking questions about their company! ". . . and there was no one left to speak for me" Message 6049400 ++++++++++++++++++