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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (37542)	11/19/2001 11:18:45 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I know only that you posted this on IHub on October 18: Posted by: NorthWesterner In reply to: None Date: 10/18/2001 8:06:58 PM Post # of 1935 Anyone here who believes that they have been arbitrarily and capriciously suspended by SI, please PM me with your info. I'm contemplating litigation against SI, and would like to see whether there is a case for a charge of systemic arbitrary and capricious application of the TOU. Let me know also whether you want your comments kept confidential or don't care. TIA investorshub.com\ and that shortly thereafter, Poet was informed that the instruction that CH not post to or about her on SI was rescinded. And that SI declined to give a reason for the sudden change, except that there was no indication that it applied to anyone but you. It was not presented as a revocation of all "to or about" rules. Circumstantial evidence. Possibly there was no connection between your threat of suing them and their suddenly changing their minds and deciding you should, after all, be able to resume posting to and about a woman who feels quite deeply about being left alone by you, simply because your argument to that effect had seemed to them, suddenly, so very persuasive on its own. And in the background of my interpretation of the circumstantial evidence is that I believe the post you made to her containing the nasty, and very personal, insinuation fully justified her request to SI that you not be able to post to or about her after it was removed and your suspension for it was ended. I tend to believe, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, that it was more than friendly persuasion that got them to change their minds.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (37542)	11/19/2001 11:39:37 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

So now please show us the scenario you described. Here are my questions: Message 16677299 Message 16681823 I know also that Poet posted, not to you but to the board in general on IHub, this editorial to the effect that America is partly about the right to dissent: investorshub.com To which you replied by implying that the author of the piece (first him, then Poet, a lot of it going around) had denied the patriotism of those like your son writing: ...Mr. Allen adopts the basic fallacy of failing to recognize that his right to write that stuff was bought by the blood of people whose patriotism he denies. Such as my son. investorshub.com I have now read Mr. Allen's editorial twice and find nothing whatever that could be interpreted as "denying the patriotism" of those who have defended this country with their blood. You wrote that he had done that, but it isn't there. Just as you did with Poet. You are drawing bizarre inferences. The man wrote, among other things, questioning the "love of liberty" of those who call for an end to free debate. Kind a tautology, really, Christopher. He said NOTHING about those who have spilled their blood to preserve the very liberties some Neanderthals call them traitors for exercising. Nothing. You have equated your son with Carolyn. How could you? I also know that on IHub you appear even more than on SI to have somehow lost it. Your unremittingly hateful posts to one poster are chilling to read. Maybe you are very worried about your son, and that is a true excuse. It's humanly understandable to wish those who question the wisdom or rightness of your son's choices, and of those of the Commander in Chief, would shut up. You know your son is brave, you believe the cause is just, and you don't want to hear it. I sometimes want people who take the Katha Pollitt/Oliver Stone positions, or variations thereon, to shut up, too. But for better or worse (worse when it is your particular ox you feel gored by freedom of speech), this is America. And however upset you are to hear dissent, it doesn't make your claim that "Poet made negative inferences about our young men in uniform" true. It wasn't true. You made it up.