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: Rambi who wrote (5829)	3/30/2002 11:16:56 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Very nice, coffee-breath. ;-)

To: Rambi who wrote (5829)	3/30/2002 11:20:28 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 21057

You go, girl!

To: Rambi who wrote (5829)	3/30/2002 11:21:58 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I am jealous that was a good post I am going to go pout now, because I didn't write it

To: Rambi who wrote (5829)	3/30/2002 12:45:57 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 21057

That was a very good analysis, Rambi. Thank you. which is did CL do something that merits banning? All right, all right. I think they're are only 2 people on SI who can REALLY push my buttons. CL is one. He can stay as long as he does nothing worse than slander a dead woman that can't defend herself. The other is our favorite anti-Semite. He is banned and I AIN'T CHANGING MY MIND! I decided I got one moderators whim ban and he won hands down. There was no second. Not even CL. Or are we all just still so really furious at his ill-timed, completely inappropriate posts about someone whom people loved and who died two years ago, that we just can't miss out on a chance to go over it all-- yet again-- His behaviour is despicable. Period. It's like being in the neighborhood pub, having a few, and then brawling. I hate brawls. Always have. I'd forget it and move on, as CL will as soon as no one bothers with him. Let us hope so. a really excellent example of SI at its wooliest and wildest. LOL!! At least that. For the record, I dislike banning anyone, no matter how awful they are. Noted. Evile stays in jail, though. I've had far too many brawls with him t want another one. I think you are a brave man, and are trying very hard to be fair, though. Kudos. Thank you. I appreciate that. For anyone reading this, the Thread Junta met and cleared Ish of the charge of violating rule #1. He stays. Gotta go. Back in a few hours.

To: Rambi who wrote (5829)	3/30/2002 2:17:02 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Excellent, fair summary post, as usual. I also felt CL should not be banned, for the precise reason that he hadn't done anything in any recent post I'd seen to warrant such action. (He had, though, denied having done something egregious in the past that he in fact did do, and never apologized for. That current self-exculpating lie triggered the pileup by those who remembered it with bitterness.) Do you feel that if someone sends a threatening PM to someone else, the threatener is owed by the threatened person keeping the threat he has received a secret, to protect the threateners privacy? Not just keeping the specific threat he made a secret (keeping in mind that no request for confidentiality was made by the threatener) (it makes me LAUGH, really, out LOUD, that we are discussing a threateners right to have confidentiality-of-threat in any case!) but keeping secret the very fact that a threatening PM was sent. Do you believe threateners have a right to expect their threats to be kept secret, and/or the fact that they've made a threat to be kept secret? I trust your judgment on such things so much that I'm willing to accpt that my hilarity at the notion is misplaced if you say it's misplaced.