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: Rainy_Day_Woman who wrote (37589)	11/19/2001 11:40:39 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

Probably just the ones who threaten to sue After all, why would INSP want to waste any money defending anything related to this money losing hole in the ground?

To: Rainy_Day_Woman who wrote (37589)	11/20/2001 2:06:54 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

There isn't any reason to think that the not-to-or-about rule will be rescinded in any case in which a litigious bully doesn't threaten to sue for his right to post to an unwilling recipient. I'm sure that anyone who makes a credible threat to sue them as CH did will get the right to make deposits in your inbox whenever they want to, and say what they want to within the TOU about you anyplace, anytime, with your right of protection limited to covering your eyes. Of course violations of the TOU will then be unknown to you, and as we know, CH has already, earlier, violated the TOU in a distressing way in the case of Poet (the post was removed and he was suspended for it), and as I have shown, he has, additionally, recently flat out lied about her, claiming that she "made negative inferences about our young men in uniform" when she did no such thing. So I'd say the Ignore feature isn't an entirely satisfactory solution for her.