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: BryanB who wrote (1352)	10/11/1999 5:52:00 PM
From: funk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1638

Tim Luke should get himself booted, just so we can all vote and his sheeple can get him reinstated too. It can become a new right of passage for all the SI Guru's. Tim go for it. It will be like watching your own funeral without the mess.

To: BryanB who wrote (1352)	10/11/1999 5:54:00 PM
From: Blue On Black	Respond to of 1638

clap,clap,clap,clap,clap.... Picture me whistling and stomping. I'll buy you a root beer if we ever meet. lee

To: BryanB who wrote (1352)	10/11/1999 6:16:00 PM
From: IEarnedIt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1638

Bryan! I'm impressed!!!!! <<<(yes, I read all 2100+ public and private messages)>>> I didn't even read ALL of the public ones<g> And I take back telling you a while back that you would soon qualify to sell bridges in Brooklyn<ggg> Thanks for the post ;-) JD

To: BryanB who wrote (1352)	10/11/1999 6:24:00 PM
From: bully	Respond to of 1638

Democracy has............................................... Once again prevailed! "Congratulations" :) "BULLY"!

To: BryanB who wrote (1352)	10/11/1999 6:26:00 PM
From: HairBall	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1638

Bryan: Congratulations on your SI banana republic vote...preordained outcome! Last I heard SI had around 120,000 members or is it more now? Let's see you got 703 votes out of a possible 120,000 votes. So you got a voter turn out percentage of .586% (rounded to three decimal places) Yes that is right, less than six tenths of one percent of the members voted. But you expected a voter turn out of one third of what you got. That would have been less than two tenths of one percent of the SI Membership. Let's see, that would have been about 234 votes. Heck, Tony probably has that many SI members signed up over on his private site...LOL! If you truly had plans to have a "real" vote you would have Pmailed the entire membership with the facts of the case and allowed them to decide to vote or not. Regards, LG

To: BryanB who wrote (1352)	10/11/1999 6:39:00 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1638

Since I know that you love my ideas for expanding your business... SI now has an opportunity to diversify. You can have a crack cyber legal team that you can hire out to your members to fend of the attacks from lawsuit happy members. Hell, you can probably make more from that than you would from memberships and advertising combined. And it would truly be following Geoffrey Moore's Tornado marketing approach as the lawsuits will feed off of each other. Let me guess, you already had this on the drawing board...Brilliant!!! I rescind my earlier criticism. BTW: When do we get to vote on the other banned members? BTW2: Outside of the clarification of the TOUs, will you be identifying which items are "absolute termination" and which are "termination, but you can get back on if you are popular enough". I want to know beforehand so that I don't cross the line. I don't think that I am so popular that I would win a vote. JXM

To: BryanB who wrote (1352)	10/11/1999 6:48:00 PM
From: bob	Respond to of 1638

When will a vote be taken for all the other members that were terminated?

To: BryanB who wrote (1352)	10/11/1999 7:30:00 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Respond to of 1638

Hey, check it out Bryan. GNET could go and buy these guys and my idea could be implemented overnight!!! clicknsettle.com Check out the fee structure: clicknsettle.com

To: BryanB who wrote (1352)	10/11/1999 8:31:00 PM
From: Boddington	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1638

Glad that's settled then, Bryan. Now no more votes please. However you rewrite the TOU, make sure you leave room for flexibility. No matter how black & white you try to make it, you'll still be bogged down in people's interpretations and appeals of it. Just look at our Injustice System. The TOU has served its purpose so far, and will continue to serve its purpose so long as the "judges" keep in mind that there absolutely is a difference between the swine and the butcher. Now, let's start applying that 18 and over rule! Regards.

To: BryanB who wrote (1352)	10/11/1999 8:53:00 PM
From: Anthony@Pacific	Read Replies (13) \| Respond to of 1638

Testing Testing 1...2...3...testing testing 1...2...3...! Bryan, Im so used to seein " you arent authorized to post" Its a little disorienting and Im a little rusty , but here goes. I want to say thanks to all those who supported me and those who cared enough to bring me back. To all those who voted against my returning to SI, sorry, maybe someday you will see some value in what I do. If that never happens, I'll live. I have no intention of adressing the hundreds of emails and PM's regarding posts that people made while I was off of SI that were offensive , untrue, or derogatory. ( Water under the bridge ) Let it suffice to say that, for a vote the turn out was huge, thousand s and thoussands read this thread and monitored it as it moved along. I know I did , it wasnt always a comfortable position to be under everyones microscope, especially when you have as colorful of a past as I do. Thanks for the support and thank you SI members for bringing me back. Now if I can just remember where I left all those cans of Whoopass. Let the truth consume the fiction.....and away we go! Peace, A@P

To: BryanB who wrote (1352)	10/12/1999 12:08:00 AM
From: David Smith	Respond to of 1638

Quit taking yourself...and SI...so frickin' seriously. Christ.

To: BryanB who wrote (1352)	10/12/1999 7:13:00 AM
From: Edwarda	Respond to of 1638

Dear Bryan, Thanks for the thoughtful posting re the reasoning behind the vote. Although I could not care less whether Anthony is on SI or not, I did understand that the issue at hand was more than Anthony, which is why I bothered to vote. (Had it been a mere popularity contest, my vote would have been altogether different.) I, for one, should deeply appreciate clarification of the guidelines for enforcing the terms of use. Aside from the spambot, the enforcement seems to be somewhat erratic. I should like to know what some of these kids are doing here on SI, for example. I do recognize that some of the apparent enforcement problems may have to do with stretched human resources as well as attention to content. However, clarification could be very helpful in areas where the wording seems a bit vague or overly inclusive.

To: BryanB who wrote (1352)	10/14/1999 12:05:00 PM
From: WTMHouston	Respond to of 1638

Bryan, Not much to say, except GOOD JOB -- which is what we have come to expect from SI. Troy PS - I really liked the timing -- "after the market closed." <gg>

To: BryanB who wrote (1352)	10/14/1999 11:19:00 PM
From: zurdo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1638

I am sure you must realize that 90% of the people clapping and slapping your back are Anthony disciples....I am very saddened by your decision to put Anthony's reinstatement to a vote....Anthony is a master of organization, and it was a foregone conclusion that he would pack the voting with his disciples....The results were a certainty.....