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.

Pastimes : Silicon Investor: What's Next? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scoobah who wrote (32)	4/15/1999 8:44:00 AM
From: Tech Master	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 395

Protecting the swindler and protecting the anonymous are two different animals. You post under an anonymous nom de plume.... therefore you must be a swindler.... right? In America we assume that somebody is innocent until proven guilty.... remember? Go back and brush up on Constitional law before you suggest otherwise. These threads are not investment advise.... they are entertainment forums that generally discuss financial matters. The minute somebody regulates SI as a formal investment forum requiring that only CFA's post here.... I'll be starting a new web company that doesn't.

To: Scoobah who wrote (32)	4/21/1999 1:08:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 395

Steve, the future you paint is hideous indeed. If some investment analyst screams the sky is falling and a stock takes a hit, we all just live with it. But if a poster on SI say's the same thing somehow it should be gotten control of by the courts?? The best thing about SI has been individual investors sharing knowledge and news about industries previously kept by only a few on wall street. Removing that benefit by suing people who may be passing false information is not the answer. Anyone who believes that a few posters on SI are effecting the price of a sound companies stock are giving a lot more credit to these boards then they deserve. And if it is effecting the stock of a company, there is probably some truth to the information. Or enough fear from other incompetent management decisions in the past to give it credence. Michael