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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (56060)	8/30/2002 10:46:55 PM
From: Tom C	Respond to of 82486

You also threatened ... Blah...Blah...Blah... Your attempt to have you own moderated beanie thread failed. Get over it.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (56060)	8/30/2002 11:17:01 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

No, I'm not losing at all. Your position is untenable. Yes, SI had to rescind the to-or-about. Why? Because they had no right to impose it in the first place. It was unlawful for them to impose it. Jeff refused to rescind it, so I went to the legal staff, who understood their legal obligations, and explained to them why they couldn't do that. They agreed that I was right, and agreed to rescind it to be in compliance with their legal responsibilities. To adhere to our contract, instead of, as Jeff wanted to do, violating it. Say you sign a contract with a store to deliver a refrigerator to you for $500, and you have a signed contract with them, and they then charge your credit card $800. I guess you would just accept that, right? If your wife (if you have one, don't know), said to the store "hey, give us back our $300 or we'll sue," you would chew her out, right? You would say "what are you doing, blackmailing them." right? And if the store then said to the credit card company that they "had to" make the refund, you would say the store was wrong to refund the money and shouldn't have, or your wife shouldn't hve made them do it. Right? Ha.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (56060)	8/31/2002 1:34:29 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

So let me get this straight, E was going to report a joke about porn (or a needling- however you prefer to term it), about an alias on a thread named "E", to a bar association in an attempt to ruin someone's career (a REAL person, as opposed to a silly alias on a chat board)? And you think CH is in the wrong? That would be like people calling the bar association and turning JLA in for mental health problems and getting him referred for anger management classes based on his posting record here. The case could certainly be made- but it would be wrong to make it. The fact that E could get her husband to threaten anyone about some comments made about an alias, shows just how far out of touch with reality some people have gotten here. The fact that Ch might be a little annoyed that E's husband would report him for something said about "E" doesn't strike me as odd. His "vile" slander wasn't anywhere near as "vile" as some of the crap I've put up with. But "I" am an alias. And I wouldn't ever consider taking anything that happened to an ALIAS into 3d to ruin a real person. That is just so very very strange. Really. Weird. Think about it.