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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (48686)	5/31/2002 1:21:45 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

And thames? That post she produced was to HIM, not to ME. That post was from Thames commenting on X's sudden departure. Based on the timing of her PMs to him and to me, his reference was clear to me at the time. My comment on the subject was very subtle, perhaps too subtle. Rather than insisting that she be unbanned, which, as you know, is not my style, I posted instead how glad I was to see her in hopes of shaming you into unbanning her. I assumed, as apparently did X, that Thames post was what made you relent. As this incident was developing, it seemed evident to me that either you had banned her as soon as you saw her start posting and unbanned her after Thames protested. I didn't know if my hint would have been enough to effect an unbanning or not. As I said earlier, when you denied having banned her, I considered that perhaps some SI glitch on a glitchy day had restored the wrong file of banned posters. I am not accusing you of lying. I would not do that unless I was certain. Since you affirm that you did not, I accept that. But SOMETHING happened. I'm quite sure that X isn't a drinker. <g>