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: E who wrote (47004)	5/12/2002 11:53:47 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

I don't know if you are the one who supplied the information that Poet posted as apply_liberally to the one who told that to Jeff. I have no way of knowing, do I? Actually, you do have a way of knowing. I have told you, and I tell you again, that I did not even know that Poet had the name apply_liberally or whatever the other one was, I forget now. Therefore I was incapable of telling anybody anything about them, and I didn't. I had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. I did not report it under this name or any other name. I did not give the information to anybody else that could have enabled them to report it. I had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. Now, you have to make a decision. Do you believe me or not? But you do have a way of knowing.

To: E who wrote (47004)	5/12/2002 11:56:24 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

PS. I see that I was right and Laz was wrong. No surprise to me. He's often wrong. And I see you are continuing the big lie about my relationship with SI. Not that that surprises me, either. Once I thought you had at least a nodding acquaintance with truth. Clearly that's not the case.

To: E who wrote (47004)	5/13/2002 8:23:02 AM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Hypothetically , E, you should be ashamed of yourself for publicly posting such false and groundless speculation. But, hypothetically, you seem to have lost all sense of honor in your pursuit of a cause that has obsessed you. Hypothetically, you would benefit from serious self-examination as to how far you are willing to go in abandoning truth as a standard in what you say. What actually happened is that you said you didn't turn Poet in and I made the point (one you still seem peculiarly incapable of grasping) that if, hypothetically, you had said, to, say, Dithers, something like, "Gee, Poet complains that the TOU regarding harassment aren't enforced, but she violated the TOU herself by having a second accn't under the name of apply_liberally!"... If that had happened, you would be able to say that you "had nothing to do with" turning Poet in, and yet you would have been--ever so innocently-- the supplier of the information that Dithers, in this example, used to get Poet suspended.