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 (47876)	5/17/2002 2:40:18 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

I think that blackmail has to rise to a serious level to qualify. "Marked impact", by the way, is not the same as "reputation destroying". It is a question of whether it is reasonable to assume that the threat is serious, by both parties. People tease each other all the time with threats to tell embarrassing, but essentially trivial, things. It is true, if the material would harm a third party whom one presumes the target cares about, it would be blackmail. Sorry not to have covered that. If one knows that there is some reason that the person attaches a high degree of importance to keeping something a secret, but does not see why, sure, I suppose that is blackmail, as long as the person seems to expect a significant harm to ensue through the revelation. On the other hand, if one doesn't register the degree of resistance, and the material does not seem too harmful, then I don't think it is blackmail. Since I never took it that he was insinuating that she had done "something", I disagree with the characterization of matters. All he ever seemed to be saying was that he could demonstrate that they had been friends, and pretty close. If she wants to deny it, and he cannot prove it, fine, the audience is mostly sympathetic to her. Apart from that, she has no cause that I can see to give him permission to share PMs and e- mails, except what she has imagined him to be implying. In any event, he was not aiming at getting such permission, and therefore did not get what he wanted, and her action implies that the PMs/e-mails are not materially harmful, less so, at least, than alleged innuendoes for which he has been widely denounced.........