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 : RRRR: Rare Medium Group (soon to be) formerly ICC -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ztect who wrote (71)	1/16/1999 5:05:00 PM
From: Mahatmabenfoo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1150

> For supposedly being a lawyer, you are pretty loose and > glib with your words. Tch, tch, and triple tch: whenever I make points you can't counter, you resort to name calling. Were you a bully in 3rd grade too? > "The whole racket is to collect money WITHOUT work" Try to stick to substance: my point was public companies generally have a plan better than an hour's pay for an hour's work. That's still my point, and you are unable to counter it. The example you offered to counter was flat wrong, and I demonstrated that: it was an insurance company, which business is NOT based on an hour's pay for an hour's work. I could have used prettier language -- "insurance companies are a legitimate means by which risks are allocated" --- but it doesn't change that my point was made. Of course, I did call insurance a "racket" but somehow I think the insurance industry will survive that brutal name calling. > because your inferences are so blatantly irresponsible > that a corporate lawyer wouldn't make them because > he'd understand the potential liability. You're threatening me now, big boy? Because I called the insurance business a "racket"? >>It doesn't mean the company will succeed. Lots of failed companies >> have prestigious boards. By itself it doesn't mean much...." > Per this post, are you saying that "Rare Medium is a "..struggling or > substanceless.." company trying "...to add prestige by adding big names..." I meant exactly what I said. By itself, having fancy names on a board -- which I am assuming only for the sake of argument is true of RRRR -- doesn't mean much. I have serious questions about whether RRRR has a business strategy that makes sense. If it has a strategy, no one here seems to know it. Your answer to that -- that RRRR may have a respectable board -- is not enough of an answer for me. It is a sign that you are acting on faith alone. Not sharing that faith doesn't make me a criminal. > Furthermore, I am forwarding the contents of your posts > to Rare Medium's legal council, so I strongly suggest that > you cease and desist from any further posts immediately. Questioning the business strategy of a company is EXACTLY what this forum is for. That you can't answer my questions is not my problem. Your threats and views about what constitutes "liable" are too foolish, inaccurate and off topic to justify me answering them there. I'm going to continue to express my views, if I feel like it. And I'm going to continue to believe that RRRR has no plan unless someone explains to me otherwise in a manner I can believe, and without wild threats. - Charles