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.

SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Welcome New SI Members! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Bob who wrote (4930)	4/5/1999 1:19:00 PM
From: Joe Copia	Respond to of 32871

Thanxks.

To: SI Bob who wrote (4930)	4/5/1999 1:38:00 PM
From: PatiBob	Respond to of 32871

Anybody can "access" all they want. But if someone's phone number and/or street address is posted here, it's out of bounds. I'm confused here. If a company is operating out of their home, using their home address as their business address, it can't be posted on SI? PB

To: SI Bob who wrote (4930)	4/5/1999 1:48:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32871

Bob, I have some original research (the research is not found anywhere else) on 11 selected network and telecom equipment stocks. I do not wish to go through the experience of being caught and jailed by your spambot. What can I do? Sleepless in Seattle, CTC

To: SI Bob who wrote (4930)	4/5/1999 2:03:00 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32871

Re: Citing public records I think the subject of citing public records that "out" people needs to be further clarified. Rather than say what I think SI should do, I can only say what criteria I use. 1. Is the (personal) information on-topic? If not, nix it. 2. Is there strong evidence to suggest said person has a contractual relationship with the company at issue? 2a. If yes, then they are fair game as all such relationships by SEC rule must be disclosed. 2b. If not, then the source of the information must be considered. For example, I don't consider a reverse e-mail lookup on a public database to be acceptable for posting on SI even though, technically, that information is "public". What I do consider truly public are relevant court transcripts and articles that are disseminated by "reputable" news sources. [Yes, it gets murky here. Surely the NY Times is reputable, but what about "Jeff's Get-Rich-Quick Newsletter"?] When I first started posting on SI a couple years ago I just considered myself some fool who didn't have a clue about anything trying to sound coherent in the wee hours of the morning while posting in his underwear. OK, so maybe that's still true today, but the point I think I'm trying to make is to some degree by posting in a public forum we are all to some degree public figures and have to deal with the consequences. - Jeff

To: SI Bob who wrote (4930)	4/6/1999 9:49:00 PM
From: M. Dion	Respond to of 32871

Isnt it possible SI BOB that you had it out for FLOYDIE...?? Not trying to cause problems.....but information re: publicly traded companies and insiders of those companies whos phone numbers and or street addresses are continually given out on SI.....but to terminate him for that......why not a warning.... cmon bob.....floydie didnt deserve that and you know it..... but someone felt so and no one i have spoken to believes that your behind his banishment...... You dont work for George Steinbrenner do you?...LOL Good luck on your policeing....... mike