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 (12291)	5/7/2002 10:36:35 AM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

There was no harm. No complications of the sort you mention. A goof, was all. I know others who've done it. There was a free sign up time; you could nominate someone else for membership. A bunch of people did it on impulse then. Yes, I'd think there would be a statute of limitations, too; that the fact that it was a prank w/o a victim would count; and that administrative discretion would suggest that 15 days was rather extreme. But it's not huge deal in itself: it's the context of the penalty that I call ironical. The irony to me is that Poet has begged SI many times over these last months for help. St. Bill has also begged them for help. SI Jeff's position ever since the threat by a certain poster to sue them if they didn't allow him to keep posting to and about Poet is that if she and St. Bill feel the law is being broken, they have to pursue legal action. IMO, that lawsuit threat, following which SI Jeff explained that he had to lift the toorabout (which left Poet and her husband with no assistance except through the law, against a lawyer who can represent himself free), answers this question of yours: Why has SI been so quiet on the other major issue that is consuming the majority of at least two other threads. CH denies being the informant.

To: one_less who wrote (12291)	5/7/2002 11:28:23 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

He changed one letter (Neocom, with an M), but people started confusing us, and he was full of belligerence and trash talk, which I did not want attributed to me, so I complained about the deception, and asked if it could be stopped. The party in question was already under suspension, and had come on under a new alias. It was not hard to figure out, so I mentioned it, not knowing how severe the penalty could be. Additionally, he had done some incomplete research, and was referencing my private life in a way that violated TOU, and I complained about that too, just trying to get it to stop. The funny thing was, his research was shoddy, and he thought he knew things that were, in fact, wrong. Anyway, the upshot was that he was expelled from SI, although they relented after awhile. He blamed me for everything, and for awhile came after me obsessively, trying to pick a fight. I ignored him for a long time, and he calmed down some........