With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and should not be construed as a contact for the purposes of our analysis. Even if such advertising were a cognizable contact with the forum, it would not be a sufficient ground on which to exercise personal jurisdiction. See Russo v. Sea World of Florida, Inc., 709 F.Supp. 39, 41-42 (D.R.I.1989) (no personal jurisdiction where out-of-state corporation advertised and sold tickets through travel agents in Rhode Island); Donatelli v. National Hockey League, 708 F.Supp. 31, 35 (D.R.I.1989) (televising games, selling merchandise, sending scouts and referees for exhibition games in state insufficient contact for exercise of general jurisdiction over unincorporated association), rev’d on other grounds, 893 F.2d 459 (1st Cir.1990); but see Kim v. Keenan, 71 F.Supp.2d 1228, 1234 (M.D.Fla.1999) (<HOLDING>). Conclusion As the court below observed, the

A: recognizing that active internet solicitation is a means for establishing personal jurisdiction
B: holding that although plaintiffs met their burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over their claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress under nc gen stat  17544 the longarm statute did not confer personal jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims for wrongful death and property damage
C: holding that posting defamatory information on the internet is not sufficient to subject the poster to jurisdiction in each state in which the information is accessed
D: holding that unlike subject matter jurisdiction personal jurisdiction may be waived
A.