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: J. C. Dithers who wrote (12379)	5/7/2002 4:39:34 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

You are implying something unpleasant about Poet, I see, but what that might be, you don't specify. Are you aware that Poet doesn't deny that a suspension for a second accn't is required by the TOU, and neither do I? Okay, let's say the irony of Poet getting suspended for 15 days for the year old violation, IMO probably on a report for which CH is responsible (though not via his own account), while CH gets to post such stuff as is on the link below to her and she is told SI won't help her, she must take it to the law, escapes you. Just in a vacuum, ironies aside, do you think CH should be allowed, w/o sanction, since his threat to sue SI made them take the toorabout they had on CH and Poet off, to post such things to Poet as this? What do you think of just this single post by CH, who, as you must know, has repeatedly made clear his intention of making Poet's life uncomfortable enough so that she will be forced to give him what he wants. Message 17422314

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (12379)	5/7/2002 4:41:57 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

"What I failed to do was to see any remote connection..." The timing under current circumstances provides a remote connection, as all things considered, it "seems" too coincidental to believe that there is no remote connection. Providing a specific one that is conclusive is a more difficult task. A couple of examples of multiple identities have been posted. In each case malicious intent was attributed to these posters prior to SI involvement. It was also suggested that at the time Poet exercised this ruse, it may have been tried by others, just for the sake of the challenge. Given the timing of the actual offense juxtaposed against the current circumstances, and the fact that other cases were not simultaneously acted upon; I find it hard to believe that it is simply the product of some automaton process. That, however, is a remote possibility?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (12379)	5/7/2002 4:53:23 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Here is another item from the TOU. Additional to the one about dual accounts, I mean: * Use Silicon Investor for illegal purposes or for the transmission of material that is unlawful, harassing, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, obscene, tortuous, improper or otherwise objectionable. I believe the TOU are being enforced, shall we say, ironically. I suspect that CH's threat to sue, that forced Jeff to remove the toorabout he had in place long before the stalking and harassment reached the horror-stage it is at now, is responsible for some ironical enforcement decisions. What I am saying is that Poet is being harassed by CH. He has violated her privacy online by personal references to a family matter and another matter. He has threatened her with further violations of her privacy. He is behaving, demonstrably, improperly. Worse than 'improperly,' caddishly. And he is harming her. Those are TOU violations. But Jeff chooses to pretend (imo) that they aren't. Before the lawsuit threat, Jeff had a toorabout on CH and Poet. After it, he had to remove it.