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: Neocon who wrote (50778)	6/13/2002 1:14:03 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

So you agree that there were mutual promises made, and that I kept mine, and that Laz broke his. You may not want to call them contracts, but legally, that's what a contract is. Contracts do not need to be multi-page documents. As you learn in law school, Contracts 101, a contract is formed when there is a meeting of the minds on mutual promises. Which even you now seem admit there was.

To: Neocon who wrote (50778)	6/13/2002 1:30:17 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

You're using an inaccurate analogy, which isn't like you. If Poet had started slamming me on public threads, first you and others would probably have stepped in to stop it, and second, that would directly affect the contents of the contract, since it is generally understood on SI that to-or-about agreements are mutual. A more accurate question would be if X and E had had an argument about Poet on other threads, not SMBR, would that have entitled me to jump in and attack or defend Poet without violating the agreement? Keep in mind that what Laz re-banned me for had 1) no relationship of any kind to Poet, and 2) no relationship of any kind to the SMBR thread, and therefore no relationship of any kind to any aspect of the contract, or agreement, or mutual promises, or whatever you want to call it. Legally, they are all contracts. So to be accurate, you have to set up a hypothetical where there was a situation that had nothing to do with Poet or SMBR but that justified me in posting to or about Poet without being seen to have violated the agreement. Can you dream one up?