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 : Business Wire Falls for April Fools Prank, Sues FBNers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Condor who wrote (61)	4/27/1999 4:34:00 PM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3795

Condor, I'm not bashing you or anything like that, and I understand that you're entitled to an opinion that may differ from my own. I feel that debating all sides of an issue is healthy for all parties as long as the debate doesn't degenerate into something less than a debate. All that I'm trying to do is clear up any misconceptions regarding the facts of what happened. If you have some misunderstandings or misconceptions, then it's likely that other people share those same misunderstandings. The joke site did not take place on SI. It was on an entirely separate URL. There was a thread on SI dedicated to the joke, but SI had nothing to do with it. Whether or not any of the respondents were SI members, and whether or not those respondents revealed any truly personal information, I don't know. It is my belief that the respondents were NOT from SI (in fact, I don't really know), as the SI thread pretty much made it clear to anyone with reasonable intelligence that the site was an April Fool's joke and a parody. Hope this helps somewhat. KJC

To: Condor who wrote (61)	4/27/1999 5:04:00 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3795

Ah, okay. Sorry for the misunderstanding. As I see Kerry already mentioned, SI was not a point of entry in this particular case. Last year's caper, FBN Associates had more participation direct out of SI, but the site metrics didn't disclose sensitive info such as usrnames and pswds. This year's was even less intrusive in that manner. My mistake for jumping to a conclusion that you were implying something very improper; apology extended. (It's been kind of a busy day with multiple press people in one ear, and multiple lawyers in the other, so please excuse me whilst I attempt to sort everything out coherently. <gg>)