that appellee directly advertised to Pennsylvania residents. See appellants’ EXHIBIT D, E. These references serve as nothing more than indicators for visitors in ascertaining the location of the campground in relation to known areas. ¶ 17 Appellee’s newsletters are advertised in two national publications. There is no evidence in the record that these are directly targeted at Pennsylvania residents. See appellants’ EXHIBIT M, at 12. Additionally, appellee handed out brochures at the campgrounds located in New Jersey. Id. at 15. In order for a party to obtain a brochure without stepping into New Jersey, the party needs to initiate contact with appellee by written inquiry. Id. These forms of communication preclude a finding of systematic and continuous contact. See Efford, supra at 375 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 18 Moreover, the owner of Four Seasons
holding interactive website did not create general jurisdiction holding that the defendant maintained a passive website and was therefore not subject to general jurisdiction holding that a passive website that merely makes information available is insufficient to confer general jurisdiction holding that a nonresident defendant who knowingly sent false information about billing commissions into massachusetts via us mail in order to deceive the plaintiff into accepting a lower percentage than was due him was subject to specific jurisdiction holding that absence of evidence that appellee internet company directed advertising towards pennsylvanians via its website and the initiation by appellant to receive information via mail precluded a finding of general jurisdiction