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: E who wrote (37584)	11/19/2001 11:36:18 PM
From: Rainy_Day_Woman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

did SI rescind the restraining order for all posters under it? or just a select few?

To: E who wrote (37584)	11/19/2001 11:41:18 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

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. You put it a lot more strongly than that in your initial post, but I'll let that pass. You're entitled to soft-pedal if you want to. I hope you don't jump to those kinds of conclusions in your stock investing, or you might not do as well as I would wish for yourself that you did. In fact, I merely wrote a friendly letter to the legal staff of InfoSpace, since they are the ones who understand their and my legal rights and responsibilities, simply laying out the facts and my concerns and offering what I hoped would be an acceptable resolution of those concerns. Apparently they agreed with me that I had been treated improperly, since they reached a quite amicable agreement with me. I have no idea whether that represented a change in corporate policy. That's up to them, not to me. I might add that I had been told by someone intimately familiar with Infospace that they didn't shy away from litigation, but relished it. If that was true, then it becomes even more clear that they recognized that I had been treated wrongly. It is to their credit that they corrected it without any need for litigation. As to your question, my response was based on several posts, some here and at least on on IHub. At least one of the ones here appears to have been removed, so the record cannot now be shown completely. But it was not based on the single post you pointed to. And that should resolve all that issue, so perhaps we can move forward from here.