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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : DGIV-A-HOLICS...FAMILY CHIT CHAT ONLY!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Howard C. who wrote (43022)	5/4/1999 12:49:00 AM
From: dch	Respond to of 50264

Howard, I think if anyone wanted to dredge up any of the posts you've picked, for your nostalgic romp through dgiv histrionics, they could manage it on their own. The program you're running is good if you want to rub salt in old wounds, or if you're trying to wound some old salts. But the record sounds broken, and a few have already asked you politely to turn it off. The long wait for dgiv to rise from its ashes is sufficient, without your assistance, to fuel investor burn out.

To: Howard C. who wrote (43022)	5/4/1999 3:59:00 AM
From: Citidude	Respond to of 50264

Howard C. : What was that all about, I'm afraid you totally lost me. (eom)

To: Howard C. who wrote (43022)	5/4/1999 7:16:00 AM
From: Zack Lyon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50264

Boy, after reading that post, I am glad I am NOT BYRON. He's got a serious problem and this proves it IMHO.

To: Howard C. who wrote (43022)	5/4/1999 9:03:00 AM
From: RocketMan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50264

Howard: I am not trying to defend either Byron or that post. Byron knows how angry I and others were at various times back then, and he can speak for himself if he so wishes. And if your intent is to either embarass him or have him come to the thread and explain himself, then that post might do it. However, that is not what I want to address. I want to address the last sentence there: RUMOR HAS IT THAT THIS POST IS ONE OF THE SEC'S FAVORITE. I assume you said that in jest, or in hyperbole, since you said you had not been supoenaed regarding DGIV and even if you had been I don't know how anyone would know that. But what has been bothering me, not just on this thread but on others, is the implicit assumption that a branch of the federal government has the right and duty to control the speech that we choose to use on the internet, regardless of how much others might dislike what is said. Now, I do understand that in the case of brokers, promoters, and others in the business the use of such language might break some regulations. And I don't know if Byron is in that category, but I have no reaason to believe that he is, and for the sake of argument let's assume he is just an ordinary investor. An ordinary investor who makes posts, like that one, that are clearly emotional, ill-advised, and as it turns out very incorrect. But are they anything the federal government needs to stop? And if so, what should be the new rules governing free speech? Should the federal government care, and limit our first amendment by restricting what we as private citizens can say in such matters? Where do we draw the line? Is it OK to make wildly optimistic statements about, say, our favorite football team, but not about our favorite stocks? If so, why? Is it because in one case it is entertainment and in the other case it can lose people money? But what would a better on a football game say if he lost money on his bet? Would he also be able to go after an exhuberant fan who posted about the team? And what if DGIV had indeed gone to $36? Would it then be OK? And let's not forget that by this day last year Digitcom had published a flurry of PRs within a month, involving A joint venture with a Jakarta telco A profit from 1997 An agreement with the Mordovian government A new Russian office and a new headquarters in California Retention of a major company as adviser for more Indonesian acquisitions An Australian POP Acquisition of an Indonesian telco IDTC was up over $30 at that time, and internets were just beginning to explode. So a claim that DGIV was worth $36 at that time may not be as outrageous as it appears today. So suppose that instead of that post, Byron would have said something like "In my humble opinion, given the many connections that DGIV has made in Indonesia, Russia, and Australia, and given the value of companies in a similar business, I believe that DGIV is worth a minimum of $36 today." Would that have been OK to say? If so, then we are discriminating on the basis of how erudite a poster is, even if they post what is essentially the same thing. I don't know the answers to these questions, but I would much rather maintain our freedom of speech on the internet, and educate investors, rather than risk losing the right of free speech. And I say that having lost more money than the average investor on this stock.