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 (47038)	5/13/2002 1:37:10 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

No biggie indeed. My forest and trees statement applies. The real issue is not who got Poet banned...

To: E who wrote (47038)	5/13/2002 2:15:49 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"...except that if it were true and provable that CH gave the tip to whoever the "informant" was, it might be a relevant item in the presentation of a legal case regarding harassment. I see seven possible scenarios. The only one that would have a baring on this discussion would be number 2 which seems unlikely; or number 4. Even if number 4 were proven, it would only be relevent incidentally. 1) SI was just doing general house keeping. I have dismissed this scenario, since many more posters would have received a consequense if this were the case. 2) CH provided information to SI Jeff or some third party who provided information to SI Jeff. This is very unlikely given the strength of the denials supported by logic from CH. 3) SI had their own issues with Poet and so went a searching for anything that could muzzle the nuisance...A possibility given the kind of response SI Jeff provided. He didn't actually say the information was brought to him by one of the SI posters. 4) Someone (a third party) who CH aligns him self with, has taken on the task of acting on CH's behalf by eliminating the nuisance Poet from the scene. CH would not actually need to provide the information for the informant to act on his behalf. 5) Some one else who had gotten personally involved with Poet on other issues unrelated to the CH controversy informed on her. Most possibilities have been eliminated by self disclosure. 6) Someone with knowledge of Poets offense felt compromised with the knowledge that a rule had been broken, and so they just had to get it off their chest. CH'YAAhhh right.