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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (5754)	3/30/2002 12:28:31 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Oh, why didn't you just say so! Now I know who you meant! In the case to which you refer, there was an implication of the existence of, and implied threat to post publicly, PM"s or ems of a private, sexual nature. I expressed to the person at issue who shall be nameless but whom YOU have snidely raised that I didn't believe such compromising, intimate communications existed. The person who was threatened also made that claim. I believe the person about whom you are concerned was invited back on to the thread and declined to return, btw. Did you know that? So here's my suggestion: Rather than argue about whether Ish's case and the mystery one are identical, I propose to moot the silly (imo) question by informing both the mystery person and Ish that they both continue to be free to post here should they want to. I'm sending a link to this proposal to Laz now. If only all the world's problems were so easily solved!

To: epicure who wrote (5754)	3/30/2002 12:38:17 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

This is what Ish said: "He just threatened my via PM. He's a real pervert." Message 17263305 This is the applicable rule: 1. Revelation of intimate, personal, or private information about other posters or posting PMs containing such or threatening to do so or alluding to the existence of such IS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED! This specifically includes assertions involving cyberflirtation. Whether the assertions made are true or not is irrelevant. The assertions need not have been made on this thread if the other party is a poster on this thread. No warnings will be given prior to banning for this offense. Ish's post does not: -reveal intimate, personal, or private information about other posters -He does not post a PM containing such -He does not threaten to post a PM containing such -And he does not allude to the existence of a PM that contains intimate, personal or private information -He does not refer to any existence of cyberflirtation Though I do see similarities to the situation that caused the rule to be in affect, the way the rules are written, Ish has not violated them. IMO.

To: epicure who wrote (5754)	3/30/2002 12:49:48 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I hadn't seen this edit: PS- for someone who claims to be annoyed you come off exactly like somone who is angry. At least you do for me. Hence all the gusto for personal attacks, over and over. I don't believe you can post to me without being nasty and personal. Let's see, shall we? I don't understand how it is that you perceive no connection between snide behavior on your part and the reaction it gets from me and the other SI denizens for whom you manifest so much contempt. Such attitudes toward others will always get such a reaction, X. It's a law of nature. So if you continue the snideness, you will continue to feel victimized, and continue to get to accuse others of being "personal," even though you are the initiator of the unpleasantness; and this will go on forever and a day; and it's sad. I look forward to posting pleasantly to you again, and in fact just did so. Message 17263859