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: one_less who wrote (50707)	6/12/2002 10:25:43 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Yep, I do. Here I gave my agreement to a deal, and in less than two weeks, Laz the Liar breaks his agreement. Yes, I'll admit to feeling I was played for a sucker.

To: one_less who wrote (50707)	6/13/2002 8:34:32 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I certainly think that Christopher has the wrong attitude. Laz stipulated the grounds which he felt would permit unbanning. He did not stipulate all possible grounds for changing his mind, and, in fact, changed his mind, and banned Chris anew. Since Chris loses nothing (at worst, there is a return to the status quo ante), and since there should not have been a need for negotiating his cessation of harassment of Poet, anyway, there is nothing much to complain about, except, perhaps, that Laz was too harsh. The idea of making a contractual case out of it is laughable. The real analogy is this: Laz didn't want to invite Chris to his party. Chris said that he would not do thus and such, and coaxed an invitation. When at the party, something made Laz mad, and he made Chris leave. At worst, Laz was rude, he was neither a liar nor did he break a contract........