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 (50663)	6/12/2002 6:02:30 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I seem to remember a statement made by Laz at one point that you would never be allowed back on SMBR even if your issues were resolved with Poet. I was surprised when he softened his stance and agreed to let you back on at Poets request. I did not consider his change of heart based on the circumstances a lie. Simply a

To: The Philosopher who wrote (50663)	6/12/2002 6:03:32 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

WHAT IS RESCISSION? Rescission is a remedy that wipes out the existing contract and restores the parties to their situation prior to entering into the contract. If money has been paid by one party to another, that money is returned as part of the rescission process. Rescission can occur as a result of innocent or fraudulent representation, mutual mistake, lack of legal capacity, an impossibility to perform a contract not contemplated by the parties, or duress and undue influence. For example, assume you agreed to sell and the buyer agreed to buy two acres of land that you thought you owned. Later, it turns out that you did not have title to the property. Rescission would be the proper remedy. law.freeadvice.com My position is that the contract was non- performable because he could not, and did not contemplate, relinquishing his right to ban you on other grounds, and therefore could not have more than an informal agreement with you.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (50663)	6/12/2002 7:41:07 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

There never was a contract, Sir. Do you honestly think I'm stupid enough to make one with you? You had moment to moment permission to post. Your admittance was conditional on your good behaviour. You intentionally and maliciously grievously insulted E. Poet and E got you back in. I believed that you would re-offend and you have now proven me right. I have now corrected that. This isn't the legal system. It's a community of people who associate with people they enjoy. You are scum. I want nothing to do with you.. You ignore requests to leave people alone and you throw out gratuitous baseless insults. You're behaviour forces us to put up a gate to keep you out. That's life. Also, as thread head, the rules are mine to make and change. just as you are able to make and change your own behavior- -and refuse to. The fact that you so quickly started screaming "I know have the right to post to and about Poet in the future" tells us all that your recent apology about the mess with me was nothing but empty words.