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: one_less who wrote (12741)	5/10/2002 9:56:15 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (3) of 21057

I can not understand why you are taking issue with me. Okay, the posts from you that I have responded to today all have been focused on "who turned Poet in." I have been basically saying, what difference does it make, since it doesn't appear to be in contention that she did violate TOU. This latest post of yours seems to have abandoned that issue, in favor of "some insidiousness in the process," which I take to mean something along the lines that SI itself, or SI-Jeff in particular, is out to get her. Maybe it would help if you stop beating about the bush and come right and say what you think. Is the your problem with the whistle-blower ? Is your problem with SI ? Is your problem with SI-Jeff? Or is your problem with all of the above, acting in a conspiracy against Poet? Just saying something like "it sounds fishy" doesn't advance things very much. I think you need to spell out how you know (other than hear-say) that Poet had been treated differently than others who have committed a similar violation. Moreover, what good does it do to try and convince me? I don't hand out the suspensions. What are you doing to convince SI?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next