You had that opportunity many times, counselor. You chose another path.
You could have done that last August:
Now, I realize this may not be enough for you. I understand that you will feel the need to PM me multiple times (though I've asked you not to), or post to me (though I've asked you not to) or make references about me to your buddies.
I have asked you to leave me alone. I'm doing so again, publicly this time.
Goodbye.
Message 16278923
or stayed the course set here:
On the instructions of SI Jeff I am not responding to any further posts concerning the situation with Poet.
siliconinvestor.com
or set a positive path in November:
I am going to be blunt with you, CH: I understand that the SI administration was made to lift its "don't post to or about each other" agreement as of yesterday.
I would appreciate it if you wouldn't post to me. I understand that this is now a request from me to you and I am asking you to do so out a sense of decency. You make me extremely uncomfortable and I don't want to have any commerce with you whatsoever.
Thank you in advance
Message 16672729
or chosen the path you said you wanted to follow when you thought it was impossible to actually do it:
If SI had a feature where you could post to the board in general without having to reply to a specific message, I would try to use that ...
Actually, Chris, they do. When you first click on a thread, and the header message comes up, right below that (and just before the list of new messages) is a click on that says "Post Message." That is intended to be a message to the board in general.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/msg_multireplies.gsp?msgid=16674951
(Once you were shown how to comment on another post without responding directly, you dropped the pretense of not really wanting to post directly to, but only commenting on, another's posts.)
And you had your opportunities in April:
I've asked you to leave me alone for nine months now. I have nothing for you. Not a thing. Please leave me alone.
Message 17390962
Please don't post another thing to my wife. This you have been asked formally and repeatedly.
The First Amendment is a great achievement. Another great achievement in MORAL reasoning is that ought implies can. Consequently, and more importantly under these circumstances, can does not imply ought. I'm certain that you understand.
Message 17391268 |
