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: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (5760)	3/30/2002 12:56:03 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I disagree with your interpretation

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (5760)	3/30/2002 5:10:34 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Isn't a PM a "private message" which therefore is defacto private information? As far as I can tell it's a badly written "rule". First he makes a broad a definition of "intimate, personal , or private information, then further amplifies it by defining it as including "cyberflirtation"...but from what I can understand the way the rule is written, it isn't to the EXCLUSION or personal or PRIVATE information. So I have to agree with X. And if Laz wants the "rule" to be ONLY about cyberflirtation he should modify the wording to state simply that.