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 : Bring Back Cobalt Blue- Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (378)	10/26/1999 6:18:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1264

Here is the entire first message SI Bob wrote to Cobe. With his permission, she asked me to post it. I will post the second message, too. >>>>>Nearly any information can be found about nearly anyone in the country if one is persistent and knowledgeable enough. For purposes of determining whether or not an invasion of privacy has taken place, we must look at not only the nature of the private information and the source, but also the intentions when posting it. If someone determines that a poster is a company officer and that information is readily available in the filings of publicly held companies, then it is not considered a violation of privacy because: 1. The information was available in company filings, which are assumed to be read by and/or available to everyone who uses the site. 2. The information is relevant to discussions of the company. One of the major things that was missing in your postings was relevance. If personal information about someone is posted only for the purpose of "outing" them, "punishing" them or harassment, it is considered invasive of their privacy and handled accordingly. As for his being cruel to another member, it is never appropriate to handle Terms of Use violations by violating the Terms of Use. The incident should have been reported to us and left for us to do something about. I have brought it to the attention of the appropriate people that the free accounts that should have expired 3 months ago have never really expired nor have the members been prompted to subscribe. That is our fault; not yours. Until the programmers get that straightened out, there's no reason to terminate accounts for that since, as far as I know, there isn't an option currently available for a free account holder to subscribe to the site. Invasion of privacy is considered one of the worst offenses that can be committed on the site, but as a first offense it doesn't warrant account termination. It used to, but it doesn't anymore. With that in mind, and the irrelevance of your account's free status, I have reinstated your account, but have replaced the termination with a 7-day suspension (5 days plus "time served"). A first offense for invasion of privacy normally carries a 14-day suspension, but I took into account the fact that you have written nearly 10000 posts on the site with not one single deletion or suspension in that time. Also, if memory serves, it was I who gave your account the free status because I was so impressed with the quality of your posts during your trial membership. Your participation, like the participation of any one of our members, is highly valued, and we look forward to your return in 5 days. Regards, SI Admin (Bob)<<<<<

To: epicure who wrote (378)	10/26/1999 6:22:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1264

Here is the entire second message. It consists of an exchange between Cobe and Bob, and begins with a brief note from Cobe to me. (The lines that dont have >'s in front of them are, obviously, Bob's): Here is the second message, it's his response to my message, again, as he said it's ok, please post the entire thing so nothing is taken out of context. Thank you, again. >>>>>At 12:04 PM 10/26/99 -0400, you wrote: >Dear SIBob, > >Thank you for your kindness in commuting my sentence. I really appreciate >it. I promise it will never happen again, and that I will make you proud of >your decision. That works just fine for me. I had considered reducing it even further, but couldn't. >I have emailed some of my friends, who plan on posting the information >publicly so that others will know. SI has some wonderful people, doesn't it? Yes, it certainly does. It's why I worked so hard to get this job. It's a community I'm extremely proud to be a part of. > I am constantly amazed at this techological revolution going on here. > >And, congratulations on SI making the top ten on Barron's! I didn't know that, but I guess if the list is something like "on-line investment resources", I'd be surprised if we didn't make such a list. Hopefully ahead of other discussion sites. Hopefully. But Jill and I don't warrant more than a little bit of the credit. The community deserves most of the credit. We're just here to keep the community one that attracts quality contributors. Most of the people who make SI what it is have no idea who Jill and I are. Which is as it should be... Regards, SI Admin (Bob)<<<<< >Sincerely, > >CobaltBlue