SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Rambi who wrote (5829)3/30/2002 2:17:02 PM
From: E  Read Replies (1) of 21057
 
Excellent, fair summary post, as usual. I also felt CL should not be banned, for the precise reason that he hadn't done anything in any recent post I'd seen to warrant such action. (He had, though, denied having done something egregious in the past that he in fact did do, and never apologized for. That current self-exculpating lie triggered the pileup by those who remembered it with bitterness.)

Do you feel that if someone sends a threatening PM to someone else, the threatener is owed by the threatened person keeping the threat he has received a secret, to protect the threateners privacy?

Not just keeping the specific threat he made a secret (keeping in mind that no request for confidentiality was made by the threatener) (it makes me LAUGH, really, out LOUD, that we are discussing a threateners right to have confidentiality-of-threat in any case!) but keeping secret the very fact that a threatening PM was sent.

Do you believe threateners have a right to expect their threats to be kept secret, and/or the fact that they've made a threat to be kept secret?

I trust your judgment on such things so much that I'm willing to accpt that my hilarity at the notion is misplaced if you say it's misplaced.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext