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: Mama Bear who wrote (258)	4/28/1999 1:48:00 PM
From: Cindy Powell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3795

Barb, I stand by my postings to Janice et al, and would assert these same reasonings again. Jeff and Bill are not as mean spirited (in my opinion) as Janice, so you are correct that I have responded more to Janice's posts. In all fairness, I suggest you invite a review of Janice's posting history as well, so as to keep things in context.

To: Mama Bear who wrote (258)	4/28/1999 1:51:00 PM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3795

Barb, I'm not a lurker. I am also a big fan of Janice, Jeff and Bill. But I don't see the relevance of Cindy's past posting in regards the current issue. Yes I know all about the history between Cindy and Janice and that there has been a lot of animosity. But Cindy's post did not only sound reasonable, it was reasonable. You and I can disagree with her analysis, in fact I do disagree with several of her points, but it was a reasonable exposition and deserves to me treated that way. Imo. FWIW I disagree with Cindy on the issue of BW being between two fires. Other than the touts and scam artists who hate the fact that the W3 keeping kicking over the rocks under which they live, I doubt more than a few people complained at all. Reasonable people, such as Wired, quickly recognized the parody and laughed it off. I also disagree that they relentlessly besmirched BW's name. I have seen nothing prior to the lawsuit that I would characterize as a relentless campaign. I believe that BW is pursuing this because their egos have been bruised. I believe this is a 'slapp' suit designed to scare off anyone else who would consider take advantage of their business practice. A business practice I would suggest they should review. Henry

To: Mama Bear who wrote (258)	4/28/1999 2:10:00 PM
From: Ellen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3795

In your post to Cindy, you said: > In #reply-8809731 you accuse Janice of being a 'stalker' < with the absolute implication that stalking is wrong and that if Janice is a stalker, Cindy should prove it. You also said: > If there are 'lurkers' who disagree with the majority, let them speak up. < Well, here it is, (additional) proof that Janice does indeed do that. And, by the way, she is not alone in doing so, as anyone who spends time on SI knows well. Do you think GNET's lawyers would be interested in the fact that only certain posters are frequently allowed to violate their own SI's terms of use? Message 9188570 Just the other day, I had a real and serious question which I posted somewhere and, lo and behold, here came Janice just a runnin' with a dig at the ready. Do you think she was lurking on that thread or has me bookmarked or was "alerted" by someone? Which do you think it was? Personal bias or the lack of it is NOT the issue, although that is used as a "defense" or reason in rationalizing statements made that group (Janice et al) doesn't like or agree with. And the profile(s) that is/are relevant to whether or not Janice or anyone else actually did or does stalk is theirs. It is also known, in addition to their stalking, that they 1) do perform excellent dd and 2) have ferreted out some scams. It's a shame though that it all goes hand in hand with them. Especially since the latter two don't require or depend on the stalking as practiced by them. This case with the Business Wire suit will be extremely interesting to follow and see how it turns out. I happen to agree that the fact that BW has chosen this particular sham to single out is curious. What is the consensus on "parody" as a defense? Most seem to think it's a viable defense, although one attorney already has publicly stated his opinion that it's not. Whatever happens, this is an important case and will be watched with great interest.