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 : MARUM RESOURCES ON ALBERTA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JP who wrote (1107)	12/9/1998 5:23:00 PM
From: Jesse	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2514

No company is "fair game", either way, except based on facts. No less.

To: JP who wrote (1107)	12/9/1998 10:20:00 PM
From: Mr. Oil	Respond to of 2514

>>Careful there Ray -unless you were baptized Raythereaper.<< JP. You point out that I have an alias name. It should be noted however that Ray is my name and my surname is easily found from my personal profile. So I am not so anonymous as you suggest. Regardless, my point is not that one shouldn't use an alias. That is ones perfect right and privilege. Of course I have no problem with that. If one wants to maintain anonymity, that's perfectly fine. What I do find offensive is when one makes potentially 'libelous' comments to discredit a person or company and does so without any concern of ever being accused and found guilty of slander because of their anonymity. That is cowardly and should not be tolerated by decent people who are interested in facts. I and I would say most are not interested in ill informed suggestive conjecture predicated on psydorighteousness. (companies are run by individual people so slamming a company is tantamount to slamming the persons who are responsible for making the corporate decisions) >>but guys like me are free to take a shot at the company at any time. << Now don't think I am against negative comments or shots at the company as you call them because of my previous post. I certainly am not. Not every comment can be good about a company nor should they be. That doesn't reflect reality. 'Pobody is Nerfect' as they say and all companies and individuals can be improved by being accountable to someone. Companies 'are' accountable to shareholders and I have no dispute when shareholders point out deficiencies in management decisions. It serves a very good purpose. So if you have something negative to say about MMU or any other company, go to it. But if it is accusing the company of a breach of rules, ethics, laws, or other events which are of a legal nature, one should to be accountable for the accusations made. How can we on the one hand expect management to be accountable to us when we are not willing to be accountable to each other about our own potentially libelous comments...Hypocracy! What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. The fact that I received an email from the company as part of their regular procedures to disseminate information when the same service is rendered to any one who is interested in the companies affairs is neither fishy, nor a breach of the rules and laws of the ASE or SI. It is in a confirmation that the company is doing it's job well...getting the news out in a way which keeps every investor on an equal playing field. There is absolutely no advantage to a shareholder receiving information via email as long as every one else has the equal opportunity and the same information is published via other widely used public forums during the same period of time. That is the issue and that is why I objected to the comments posted by AJ. Ray PS. Sorry for the lengthy response. Just didn't want to gloss over these points curtly and without adequate thought.