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: one_less who wrote (47457)	5/15/2002 4:01:23 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Even I wouldn't be crazy enough to sue anyone over this tempest. I hope Poet feels the same way. The expense and time would not really be worth it when she can just avoid the whole thing by not participating. I never recommend litigating anything unless there is absolutely no other acceptable alternative. Acceptable doesn't have to mean she likes it either. Poet could limit herself to lurking and PMs if she wishes to participate in a low profile sort of way. Its too bad the TOU were not enforced and that it is Poet's rather than CH's involvement that ends on SI BUT life isn't fair, is it?

To: one_less who wrote (47457)	5/15/2002 4:20:11 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You can not move this issue one way or another (On SI) without one of you agreeing to totally accommodate the other. Poet's absense makes accommodating her outside the accessable boundaries. I don't understand what you're suggesting here. What do you think Poet's total accomodation to me would be, and what would mine to her be? Would total accomodation to me be Poet agreeing to re-establish our earlier posting relationship where we posted back and forth freely and comfortably? In the long run that would, if it's possible, be IMO an ideal outcome, but at this point it's obviously not on the short-term cards. So I'm not even asking for total accomodation. I'm only asking for a compromise. I'm not asking Poet to post to me. I'm not asking her to let me post to her. I'm only asking her to allow me freedom to post to others without posting to our about her. Which is, at least as far as I know, what she has publicly said she wants. So we are now seeing some pretty serious posts regarding court testimony, test case, etc. I cautioned you about this some time ago. Our society being as lawsuit-crazy as it is, I'm not surprised at the talk of litigation. That's happened before on SI, and will happen again. But I believe that if anybody here consults a competent attorney they will be advised to forget it. I have mentioned to you several of the legal problems that would ensue. But there would also be considerable emotional pain. I wrote a paragraph about that here, intending simply to be objective and factual, but I found there was no way I could phrase it without a risk, if not a probability, of at least some people thinking I was making threats. So I dropped it. But any competent attorney will understand what such litigation would entail. And even if the litigation were successful, what would be the best outcome Poet could expect? She could get an order that I not post to or about her. But that's no victory, since I've already offered that. She almost certainly couldn't get an order that I not post on SI at all. Courts tend to fashion the least intrusive remedy, and I doubt a court would go that far on these facts. And they might toss the whole thing out on the grounds that she had a perfectly adequate remedy in the use of the ignore feature, and it's her responsibility that she chose not to use it. I don't know how a court would actually rule. But it's hard to see what benefit people think would ensue from such a proceeding.