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.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Bob who wrote (5003)	11/23/1999 11:44:00 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Did you ever consider adding it to the TOU? I will only use PM's with well-known posters now if they can be sprayed anywhere.

To: SI Bob who wrote (5003)	11/23/1999 2:27:00 PM
From: Mike M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

While we are at it Bob, what is the stance on communicating threats via PM? This may be an area you want to take under advisement if not currently considered in the TofU. Perhaps revealing a PM is a netiquette problem, but a far greater problem would seem the willingness to threaten either privately or openly.

To: SI Bob who wrote (5003)	11/27/1999 12:35:00 PM
From: WTMHouston	Respond to of 10293

<<I strongly dislike seeing private communications made public, but that's a netiquette issue, not a TofU issue.>> Is it still a netiquette issue when the PM is uninvited, is done to avoid public criticism, and seems to contain what appears to be inside information (specifically, a PM that reveals the verbatim details of a company press release before the company makes the press release)? I, too, think that publicly posting a PM is generally tacky, at best. But, isn't there a line somewhere? Troy PS - SI spell checker needs to have "netiquette" added <g>

To: SI Bob who wrote (5003)	12/22/1999 6:03:00 AM
From: Mike M	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10293

Bob, Please consider censoring Mr Wexler. His harassment of Pallisard is inappropriate. While few of us may agree with Pallisard's cited comments many of us find Wexler's continuous reference to them and hateful personal attacks to Pallisard (on various threads) to be offensive and completely uncalled for. Wexler's attacks are relentless and an egregious affront to the individual's dignity. Furthermore, one must wonder if Mr Wexler even understands the meaning of the word "bigot". The following URLs, for your consideration, are not believed to be all inclusive: Message 12338848 Message 12338652 Message 12333490 Message 12301843 Message 12284186 Message 12282667 Message 12278834