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 (45466)	3/10/2002 4:21:31 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I did it because he expressed his absolute willingness to do it. He seemed so anxious to do it for someone, anyone, I felt I should oblige him by asking him to do it for me. I know that he can talk about me plenty in pm, and you can ask him yourself how I know this, I wouldn't want to say in public, so I don't think I've really inconvenienced him all that much, but if he really NEEDS my release he can have it. Of course I won't be able to see a thing he writes, because I will put him on ignore. So let me know, if he just absolutely must post to me, if it is really necessary for his happiness, I will put him on ignore. Let me know It matters not at all to me.

To: E who wrote (45466)	3/10/2002 4:30:57 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Just in case, I have put him preemptively on ignore, so that he can do as he likes. I would, of course, prefer not to have him constantly saying ugly things about me, which is why I asked for the toorabout in the first place, when he was so kind as to offer the opportunity about. Like most people I don't like to read that sort of thing, and oddly enough, I don't even like to read that sort of thing about other people, either. Even people I do not like. But I understand that some people just can't help themselves. And since I won't be watching, he is free to be whatever he is compelled to be, and post whatever he needs to post, as we all are.

To: E who wrote (45466)	3/10/2002 5:24:34 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I'd like to straighten out the history a bit here, since what I told you in my first PM was not entirely accurate. After I sent that first PM, I went back and checked my PMs and the different versions of the header. On 2/28 all the header said on this matter was 4. A small number of persons are pre-banned for previous violations of the above rules. On that day, YYB made a rather vulgar and insulting post about CH. I told her to stop immediately discussing Chris. She snapped back and I told her to consider herself warned, with the cleat implication that she would be banned if she did not. This was then added It is requested that posters refrain from commenting on members who have been moderated off this thread. As of now that consists of Christopher Hodgkin and bonnuss_in_austin. On March 2 this was changed to 4. A small number of persons are pre-banned for previous violations of the above rules. Refrain from commenting on members who have been moderated off this thread. As of now that consists of Christopher Hodgkin and bonnuss_in_austin. If you have a dispute with them, take it to a thread where they can respond. This is only fair. Making the "no commenting" requirement a rule and a potential banning offense. On March 4 I was busy with other matters fo several hours and unable to be on SI. During that time a number of posters had a discussion about CH. He PMed me complaining about it. When I got online, I saw his PM and checked the situation and warned two of the people to stop their discusion.