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 : NEW Market Ideas - Weird Opinion Trades -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeff who wrote (502)	6/5/2001 1:30:37 PM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1016

That's cool with me, Jeff. I'm done. By the way, I don't consider my comments to be an attack on a person as much as personal comments (which might be deemed an "attack") about some very weird stock "analysis". There's a difference between saying, "You are a bad person" and "Your opinion is bad"; but I understand your point. I'm done.

To: Jeff who wrote (502)	6/5/2001 2:10:23 PM
From: HairBall	Respond to of 1016

SI Admin (Jeff): How disingenuous, you've allowed another thread on SI to do that for years... LG

To: Jeff who wrote (502)	6/5/2001 2:33:26 PM
From: JustTradeEm	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1016

Jeff, you know when one holds themself up as a god / goddess, they not only ask for but their words should be dissected. It's called, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen !! SI should be more concerned with gods / goddesses who post contradictory information and when questioned about it, refuse to answer legitimate questions. Just my opinion .... JB

To: Jeff who wrote (502)	6/5/2001 3:08:23 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Respond to of 1016

Wow!!! Kinda reminds me about stocks and shorting. If it is a good stock, it doesn't matter how hard the shorts hit the stock, the stock will do just fine. But if the Stock is overvalued or a scam, the shorters can do some real damage. I guess the "shorters" are doing some damage here if the "stock" has to complain to the admin.

To: Jeff who wrote (502)	6/5/2001 3:46:57 PM
From: Rainy_Day_Woman	Respond to of 1016

I'm sorry to see this thread being 'censored' for TLC was truly being informative about stock picking, stock pickers and techniques. many posts were great examples of what not to do, how the system works as it's happening and done with the humor and pizzazz that is his trademark I thought that's what SI was all bout? talking about stocks, both longs and shorts, questioning picks and being able to openly question the people who pick stocks and make calls I can understand the 'attacking', but not the discussing and dissecting part of your comment private chat rooms may very well be the way to go on the net

To: Jeff who wrote (502)	6/5/2001 4:49:02 PM
From: Steve Felix	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1016

BS up 38.8% today. That is weird considering the float imho. Publicly stating hold and changing your public mind two hours later could be viewed as weird or just maybe buying time imho.

To: Jeff who wrote (502)	6/5/2001 5:49:43 PM
From: c.horn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1016

Jeff I have read every message on this thread.. I have not seen one uncivil post here about anyone. How can discussing another member be a violation of the TOU? Lord knows I've been discussed ad-nauseum on threads I was banned from.. Never heard me whine about it though. No one has made any comments about anyone that is not public knowledge. So my advice to you is to tell whoever is complaining to go pound sand. Thanks in Advancement: C

To: Jeff who wrote (502)	6/9/2001 1:33:17 AM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Respond to of 1016

Dear Sir, I understand you have permanently cancelled the Membership Rights and Privileges of the Member known as arabianprincessnights. Now I understand your reasoning for this drastic action is that you suspect this Member was issuing posts using several SI accounts. Notwithstanding the fact that I would imagine the SI Staff would have little difficulty in tracking those Members who abuse the Privileges of Membership in this way, I also understand that you have commented that certain posts according to your characterization were "personal attacks" in a similar vein. A group of them. This leads me to wonder: Is this to mean that all SI Members who criticize policies here in similar fashion are to be suspected of being the same individual, impersonating many? Simply because a number of members happen to agree on admittedly troubling issues? I would hope that you would deign to please provide those of us who valued the contributions of the member known as arabianprincessnights your evidence that this Member violated TOU in this fashion, which I completely agree would be grounds for cancellation. No one should ever be permitted to abuse the SI Membership in this manner. I further expect that you are of course by definition enforcing this valid aim fairly and evenly across the board. As always, I greatly look forward to your attention to these important issues. Sincerely, Olivier L. F. Asser

To: Jeff who wrote (502)	6/9/2001 4:00:57 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Respond to of 1016

Dear Sir, Do you and Silicon Investor refuse to respond to the many questions which were raised in the following post issued yesterday? Message 15914843 I would also add, perhaps you would explain why "Jenna" has not had her Membership Rights and Privileges permanently revoked as it appears has been the case with arabianprincessnights. Ms. Simon/Jenna has admitted to the ARTIFICE of employing multiple aliases to evade suspension. Finally, as pertains to today's Hot List, would you please explain the following: #1: 3 posts today #2 13 posts today #3: 8 posts today #4: 88 posts today BUT 155 yesterday by this time, so volume has fallen off of a cliff on that thread #5: 3 posts today #6: 100 posts today versus only 39 yesterday by this time, so volume has nearly tripled This is quite odd! Sincerely, Olivier L. F. Asser