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: jlallen who wrote (44399)	2/20/2002 4:03:14 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Seems fair to me, JLA. That's been my thinking for a while. CH does have a point about the "no comments" rule being applied broadly. He should be allowed to comment on issues. But not to Poet or E or about them.

To: jlallen who wrote (44399)	2/20/2002 4:53:52 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You have hit a key point. What I got suspended for was precisely that -- in a post to another poster, I commented on things that Poet had said which were in no way personal to her. Somebody brought that to Jeff's attention, and he thought it violated the "to or about" limitation, so he suspended me. That is precisely why I went through the whole rigamarole with SI -- because I wasn't willing to be locked out of commenting on non-personal issues raised by another poster on SI as long as the comment didn't violate the TOU. If your proposal had been interpreted the same way Jeff interpreted the "to or about" provision, that would be the case. Now you agree that that would not be a reasonable restriction, but others seeing the language you proposed might have a different interpretation, and we would get into a 500-post bicker about whether a given post did or did not violate whatever agreement was or was not made. I'm not interested in any of that, frankly. If you are, fine for you. But I'm not.