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: J. C. Dithers who wrote (12737)5/10/2002 7:42:50 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (2) of 21057
 
"What exactly is your point? That the rules that apply to others are different than the rules that apply to Poet?"

I made my point in what I thought was a plain and straight forward manner. I can not understand why you are taking issue with me. Since you are, I am willing to explore it further. Let's review some of the salient features of the circumstances surrounding Poet's departure. Which BTW apparently did not apply to others.

1) Clearly as you pointed out, Poet violated the TOU and is deserving of the consequence she recieved at the discretion of the SI admin. You pointed that out already and I acknowleged it. So why are you challenging me with that point again?

What else?

2) Poet has publicised a complaint against someone that many of us have considered a thread friend. You have continued your advocacy of him in regard to this complaint, which makes your taking issue with me now over Poets suspension somewhat suspect.

3) A decided lack of action has been taken on Poet's behalf related to the complaint, which has been widely substantiated and supported by SI'ers on every side of the spectrum.

4) Poet has also publicised a challenge to the SI Admin over their handling of TOU sanctions.

5) Poet has had many "boxing" matches with SI'ers and quite a few have turned ugly. I personally have opposed her back and forth in extreme ugliness. No love loss in the process since we pretty much started out on opposite poles and have remained there.

6) Apparently the offense was a victemless one that was done as a lark at a time when other SI'ers were doing the same thing.

7) The offense occurred long enough ago so that in and of itself, there would be no reason for it to draw attention from SI admin at this time; Unless, there was some sort of electronic automatic sweep that turned this type of offense up. In which case, many such punitive actions would have been taken.

These things considered, it leads some of us to wonder "if" there is some other reasons behind the sanctions delivered to Poet than the simple factor 1 mentioned above. "If" so, and it certainly seems so, then it "could" involve some incidiousness in the process.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News