Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Technology Stocks : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bearcub who wrote (8136)	8/20/1999 11:57:00 AM
From: C.K. Houston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

bearcub, I don't know what your problem is. But, what you're doing is considered "harrassment". Hate to disappoint you ... but I never contacted SI and asked to have Ken removed. Believe what you want though. <some female she didn't much care for, i believe the name was rose> <having been mislabelled as an unworthy 'hen' of all things by c.k.houston as some rose woman she didn't care for> LOL - Rose is a friend of mine, who I've invited to stay in my home. You did the same thing last month. You listed several names on this thread and said I was saying negative things in about them, and was basically flaming thru PM's. It wasn't true then. It's not true now. And the people's names you previously listed ... knew it was a lie. Because many are my friends, and have been for some time. You're the reason I removed my email and PM function. Cheryl

To: bearcub who wrote (8136)	8/20/1999 1:09:00 PM
From: Edwarda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

bearcub, I do appreciate your spirited defense of my right to post here--and anywhere else I choose--when I have something substantive to contribute. As you yourself note, it is not necessary, but it is appreciated. However, at this point, all that seems to be happening is that Cheryl is getting increasingly testy rather than dealing with the issues she herself has raised. If she doesn't like the answers she gets, well, so be it. BTW, don't you find it interesting that there has been so little response to JXM's posting? He has a great to contribute and knows what he is talking about when he posts.

To: bearcub who wrote (8136)	8/20/1999 3:03:00 PM
From: Ken	Respond to of 9818

<si threads ..not private sorority sister enclaves> Bearcub, perfect characterization! But, how do you account for its inclusion of males, e.g., Bill, Garry, and a couple more? Everytime I read flatville's posts, and see them going off together to post side-by-side on another thread, and know that they are gossiping about us behind our backs by PM, 'sorority sisters' is EXACTLY what first and always comes to mind! Your other characterizations of them in your post were absolutely WONDERFUL AND ACCURATE, AND JUST HILARIOUS!!! But, I gotta admire them, espically c.k. for not having fallen into the polly mode against all the pressures of others, including those those males they invited into their sororiety here!

To: bearcub who wrote (8136)	8/21/1999 1:57:00 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9818

Bearcub, as you requested last week, I summed up the nutrients in my pantry. At a consumption rate of 1200 calories a day, I could last just over a month. In doing the calculation, I first discarded the old stuff, did not include anything that had to be cooked, did not include anything in my freezer, and did not include any calories for the imported food that did not list nutritional information. Nor did I attribute any calories to the dust bunnies. So the count is a bit understated I guess the moral of the story is that even someone who does not intentionally keep food in the house has enough to get through a bump-in-the-road scenario. Karen