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: The Philosopher who wrote (46603)	4/30/2002 4:48:58 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

How about you answer mine....??? Message 17402983

To: The Philosopher who wrote (46603)	4/30/2002 7:06:26 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I'll answer for Poet, since she is afraid of you and doesn't want to encourage you by giving you any attention at all. SI Admin does not take a position on posting PM's unless the sender has made clear they want them to remain private. There are two differences between the exchanges between you and Laz and the ones between you and Poet that you claim to be in possession of and are threatening to post publicly. 1) You never indicated that yours were private, and Poet has made perfectly clear that hers, whatever they may be, are. 2) Yours were in effect a blackmail attempt, ie, You do this (let me post on SMBR, Laz,) OR I will do that, to Poet. (As everyone knows, blackmail attempts, or insinuated threats made to get something to get someone one wants, are best defused by being made public immediately; and anyone who makes them has rather a lot of chutzpah to pout that their attempt has been exposed.)

To: The Philosopher who wrote (46603)	4/30/2002 7:07:14 PM
From: E	Respond to of 82486

I am curious, btw, about how you would articulate why, it seems, that you would have preferred that that exchange, which contained nothing of a personal nature in it, merely your threat/quid-pro-quo-demand, and the claim that you had been attacked, and your declination to indicate where and by whom, not be seen by the world. When you posted publicly references to Poet's personal history, and family matters, that you had knowledge of only because you used to be friends and thus had chatted as friends do, those matters were personal; as presumably are those you are now threatening to post publicly, in spite of Poet's husband's urgent request that you cease posting to his wife. Your arguments to be invited to "defend" yourself on SMBR are hardly personal. They were a case, unsubstantiated; plus an offer not to harm someone if you got your way, and, conversely, to harm them if you didn't.