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 (50805)	6/13/2002 2:22:01 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

If you are attempting to side track the discussion to a new track of agreements/contracts/grievances/actionable offices, etc. I am happy to entertain the topic. If you expect anybody to seriously take any of this as having a baring on your ban from SMBR, fuggettaboaddid

To: The Philosopher who wrote (50805)	6/13/2002 2:43:40 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

to the astonishment of a defendant who had no idea that they had entered into any contract, let alone a legally enforceable one. As I've been following this discussion, it seems to me that all the fussing over what is or is not correctly labeled as a contract is a red herring. What is being discussed is really whether the agreement is enforceable or not. The agreement is not enforceable. The thread head us authorized do whatever he pleases, even if that is inconsistent with any agreements or any criteria established by the thread. If you want to argue that Laz reneged or didn't operate in good faith, that is debatable. Whether or not you can force your agreement to be honored is another matter, one that is off the table.