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.

Pastimes : Anthony@Pacific Member Vote -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tim Luke who wrote (1268)	10/10/1999 10:33:00 PM
From: Boddington	Respond to of 1638

"it would open the door for others who were booted off...ie...petty lawsuits." I disagree Tim. In the TOU it says "may", not "will", in reference to suspensions or expulsions. So, arguments over the TOU being applied abitrarily are useless, as the language itself allows for it. This is necessary if for no other reason than to discern between 20 spamming posts in 9 hours (or whatever the rule is), and 20 useful posts. Both are a literal violation of the rule I refer to (if misquote), but only one merits suspension or expulsion. I'm glad there's room to discern between spamming for a "15 yr. old's" pump & dump site, which should get expulsion, and "spamming" for a valuable resource to prevent stock fraud, promote education about stock frauds, and prevent the enriching of criminals, such as the noble Truthseeker's site. The TOU allows for flexibility, and think they should simply have changed their minds here, rather than have this "vote". Conversely, some inflexibility would be in order too, as in when dealing with children, frauds, child frauds, etc. Perhaps knowingly letting them run wild could open SI to "petty lawsuits" as that is a black & white violation of the TOU, common sense, etc., but in the case of allowing A@P to return, there are no grounds for lawsuits based on that, nor does it make it unfair if nobody else gets a vote. The argument many people make that all manner of swine should be allowed reprieve if Anthony is allowed to return is laudably fair-minded, but ultimately bollocks. Breaking a spamming rule is one thing, and calling a tout a "goatboy" might be scandalous to some, but threatening to put bullets in people's heads and making threatening phone calls to them is another thing entirely, and likely against federal laws to boot, which goes far beyond a violation of some TOU. Do not give the vile and the violent a forum, niether the crooked and the criminal. The obnoxious we can all just avoid, I say. ---> off topic : Tim, while I have your attention, please be so kind to PM me regarding CS. Thanks.