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: The Philosopher who wrote (50580)	6/12/2002 3:37:50 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Most contracts have escape clauses, that define the circumstances by which a party may terminate the agreement. Informally, it is generally acknowledged that as long as there has been no conveyance of property, payment of cash, or service rendered that has not yet been remunerated, in other words, as long as all obligations are cleared, either party may, with proper notification, terminate the contract. Additionally, the determination to break off relations with a party, for reasons of social ostracism, would necessitate the termination of agreements. Since it is generally within the right of a party to associate with whomsoever he wishes, the end of a friendship would entail the end of all friendly agreements, such as the reciprocal right of borrowing tools. Finally, the announcement of intention is not generally considered binding in the same way that an explicit promise is, since people may change their minds under circumstances, nor is the expression of an intention in the past, that varies with current intention, considered a lie. Thus, what Laz may have said in his thread header is irrelevant. The only question is whether he is bound to the agreement to let you on the thread. I would say that he is not, as long as any commitment that you made is no longer binding. I would say that he has a right, granted by SI, to ban whomsoever he will. Whether he was right to exercise it is a somewhat different question, but he was not morally bound, by contract, promise, or "honesty" to keep you on.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (50580)	6/12/2002 3:46:07 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

As to the question of whether or not he was right to ban you, I do not think that the excuse of the contretemps with E is sufficient, since I never thought you were seriously insinuating she was a porn freak, I just thought you were tweaking her, and it got blown out of proportion (big surprise). However, the main rationale for allowing the thread- head the power to ban (apart from being arbitrary) is thread hygeine, and your presence on SMBR was very disruptive, in its nature; since most parties mainly think you brought the problem on yourself; and since there is now this thread, alive and kicking, to air all of this bullhockey, I think Laz was right to ban you, even if he could have been a little nicer about it.......

To: The Philosopher who wrote (50580)	6/12/2002 5:02:05 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 82486

Whatever. You are still banned.....

To: The Philosopher who wrote (50580)	6/12/2002 5:11:53 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

Its really a non issue sense the neighbor is pushing up daisies in my flower bed now. Maybe that makes the agreement obsolete. idonno