THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING Message Board

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 : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: epicure who wrote (5754)	3/30/2002 12:28:31 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) of 21057

Oh, why didn't you just say so! Now I know who you meant! In the case to which you refer, there was an implication of the existence of, and implied threat to post publicly, PM"s or ems of a private, sexual nature. I expressed to the person at issue who shall be nameless but whom YOU have snidely raised that I didn't believe such compromising, intimate communications existed. The person who was threatened also made that claim. I believe the person about whom you are concerned was invited back on to the thread and declined to return, btw. Did you know that? So here's my suggestion: Rather than argue about whether Ish's case and the mystery one are identical, I propose to moot the silly (imo) question by informing both the mystery person and Ish that they both continue to be free to post here should they want to. I'm sending a link to this proposal to Laz now. If only all the world's problems were so easily solved!

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next