Fellow Investors,

Does anyone know who this Feerless that Britnick keeps posting messages to on this board is?

I wish that Britnick would stop cluttering up this board with posts to a poster who has never once even posted a message on this board.

It appears that someone ( hehehehehehehe) took exception to a previous post of mine. There was nothing offensive in it. I touched briefly on why a person might actually not use another posters name when addressing them and came to the conclusion that this is why it must have been flaged by some person (hehehehehehehe) as a violation.

Posters who are afraid that they may be sued for slander or even worse fraud purposely never use the name of the person they are directing the message too. They use something simular so that everyone knows who they are refering to but not exactly the same so that they have plausible deniability.

Let us look at the definition of fraud which if proven can lead to large punitive damages:

The intentional and successful employment of cunning, deception, collusion; or artifice used to cheat or deceive another person whereby that person acts upon it to the loss of his property and to his legal injury.

Any illegal acts characterised by deceit, concealment or violation of trust. These acts are not dependent upon the application of threat of violence or of physical force. ...

Fraud is economic crime involving deceit, trickery or false pretences, by which someone gains unlawfully. An actual fraud is motivated by the desire to cause harm by deceiving someone else, while a constructive fraud is a profit made from a relation of trust. ...

A deception, intended to wrongfully obtain money or property from the reliance of another on the deceptive statements or acts, believing them to be true.l

someone or something that is not what it claims to be

Now for instance, if a reader of this bullboard who had been a longtime holder of this stock, relied on this board for information, were to finally sell because of all the negative messages and innuendo posted on this site. Then shortly after he sold there was a take over bid by which he could have profited largly from, I believe they may have a very good case against those that gave the poor advise. Especially if it was found through subpoena that the defendants actions in the market did not matched what they had wrote hahahahaha. Such actions easily fall within the definitions of fraud, especially if the manipulative poster economically gained from said actions.

Their are a lot of out of work lawyers out there at the moment willing to work on commission and some will even do it pro bono.

Let us look at the definition of slander:

words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another

aspersion: an abusive attack on a person's character or good name

The oral utterance or spreading of a falsehood harmful to another's reputation.

slander is oral defamation, untrue words said aloud as opposed to written down.

From these definitions one can see for those posters who have in the past cried they are being slandered it is not true. Slander is oral defamation, it has to be against an actual person, not imaginary cyber name and you would have to actually prove it harmed you in some way to receive compensation.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse fellow posters, truth is always the best policy.

Regards,

F.F.