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: epicure who wrote (49712)	6/8/2002 6:01:21 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Did you read this? Message 17577013 There was no post.

To: epicure who wrote (49712)	6/8/2002 6:12:25 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

So you actually assumed at the time that Laz's offer, as he understood it, was that he would not post to or about you if you asked him not to, but that you would post to or about him any time you felt like it? I wonder if there's something in law that says agreements that offer nothing to one party are in their nature suspect. I believe that if I asked someone not to post to or about me, in response to an offer from them or spontaneously, I would understand that it was a mutual arrangement. Otherwise it would be a trick I was playing on them, and unfair. But that's only my opinion. Maybe others think that one-way toorabouts are normal, and would have assumed that Laz understood that was what you had in mind.