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: Jeff Dryer who wrote (453)	11/6/1998 6:04:00 PM
From: Josef Svejk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28311

Humble thanks, Jeff, so what's your take on the Dow Jones article - #reply-6322453 ? Cheers, Svejk proofsheet.com

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (453)	11/6/1998 6:07:00 PM
From: Cheeky Kid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28311

Jeff, why didn't anyone comment on that article from Canada, you know the 100% negative one from Stockwatch? wwwa.canada-stockwatch.com

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (453)	11/6/1998 9:54:00 PM
From: Urlman	Respond to of 28311

Chris Byron is notorious in my book for getting the facts wrong...very wrong He trashed HLYW and really got things wrong. The CEO of CMGi a majority shareholder of HLYW thoughts follow.. geocities.com Cheers, Urlman

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (453)	11/6/1998 11:21:00 PM
From: mod	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28311

I wrote to the writer, and the editor-in-chief, of TSC to request a correction on number of employees. The editor's reply was that the 23 came from a Media General database, and was not important to the story anyway. But they would research it further and make an amendment (increase to 53 employees) to the story, and notify Media General their number was out of date. Dennis

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (453)	3/19/1999 11:40:00 PM
From: Tom Swift	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28311

Jeff, Would you please publicly comment on this post? Message 8419606 You may be aware of the background of this controversy, but if you need to refresh your memory, look back to the post I am responding to and follow the various links forward. It seems to me that the fact that Daniel Miller and some others (such as Fatt Matt) are below 18 years of age should result in immediate termination of their SI accounts under the current terms of use. Basically, they have certified that they are of age when, in fact, they are not. This situation is analogous to a minor walking into a bar and trying to buy a beer. If the bartender does not card them, he may not be liable (but usually is), but if he knows (such as in the case of Daniel Miller) that he is underage, the bartender is subject to severe legal penalties. Since SI has not terminated these minor accounts, despite the enormous amount of external publicity (Bloomberg, CNBC, WSJ, etc.) and the ongoing SI discussion, it seems that SI is willing to sign up and retain minors as members. If so, then SI should modify the present terms of use eliminating the explicit statement: 5.1 Current fees may be obtained by going to the Features Overview or Register sections of the Silicon Investor site. The membership is personal to you, and you may not assign or otherwise transfer your rights or obligations to anyone. You certify that you are 18 years or older and you agree to be responsible for and pay any charges incurred in connection with your user name and password. The membership shall continue until we receive notice of termination from you or we exercise our rights of termination as described in the Terms of Use. We reserve the right to change at any time the membership fees and billing methods. to eliminate the age requirement. I wonder if the SI disclaimer will stand up to litigation when/if the SEC goes after DM? It seems to me that your position will be greatly weakened by the year-long toleration of a minor posting on your site. Regards, Tom Swift