Robert,
I didn't believe that you had any sinister or ulterior motives in asking the original question. That's why I simply deleted the message and PM'd you. In a PM to Amy J, I noted that you would not have even been in the position to make an inquiry had she not brought it into issue in the first place. That said,
>>Therefore I was surprised to be censored in simply asking if anyone knew if there were a company at all...
Perhaps that's where our wires are crossed. That's not what you asked in the original post.
"I have no idea if her company is real or not, but am open minded so if anyone can provide *any* evidence it is real please post it."
Major difference. Asking if someone knows if it's true versus asking someone to post evidence are on opposite sides of the line. If I'm not mistaken, someone has already asserted the validity of her purported company, but you dismissed it since there was no supporting evidence provided.
Regarding the "loose" TOU - there's another clause that states "Violating the letter or spirit of the Terms of Use." It doesn't get much looser than that, which I'm sure was intended by the "founding fathers", as it were. It leaves open the option of looking at each issue based on its merits and circumstances; it would be next to impossible to operate otherwise. Anecdotally, a member account was recently terminated for posting a cash bounty payable to anyone for posting personal information on another SI member. Hopefully, you can see that the responses were proportional to the severity of their respective violations.
It really wasn't a big issue, and there's no reason to make it into one as far as I'm concerned... just keeping the record straight.
Regards,
Dave |
