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: one_less who wrote (10965)	4/26/2002 2:14:59 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Jewel, I made a point of posting last night the risk in toorabouts as a tactic. Do you realize that you just broke yours after having been warned? If you didn't want to post on this thread, you could have just stopped posting. I don't see the purpose in doing it with such drama. Nor do I see how it furthers your "growth goal" to disregard your toorabout. Now we will be missing both you and X. Unless of course, there really is no one to implement your banning...

To: one_less who wrote (10965)	4/26/2002 2:38:48 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I didn't know about your 'growth goals,' but respect that and will try to keep that in mind in my future communications with you. I assumed, since X had received a banning-warning, that you asked for it, or asked for her to be stifled in some way by The Authority, Laz. Now that I understand about the 'growth goals,' I also feel more sympathetic to any appeal to authority. Essentially you are inhabiting a Boxing Ring without gloves. I can't give any more time to this, but compliment you on the response. Our bottom line difference is not about X's behavior, which vacillates dramatically and at either of its nice/nasty poles is can be quite peculiar, but about whether what she did, on a Boxing Ring, deserved stifling.