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: E who wrote (56305)	9/1/2002 1:33:34 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

For the record, I earnestly would like to see Poet's name disappear from this thread, along with the long-standing controversy surrounding her. However, I cannot manage this single-handedly. Also for the record, I believe this post of yours reveals information and details that should never have been posted publicly. The exchange of posts between JLA and myself did not concern CH suing SI. It concerned the threat of CH suing SI. There is a big difference here. Suing anyone can be expensive and potentially damaging to a person's health. Threatening to sue --- "If you don't comply with my wishes I will sue you" -- takes about 3.0 seconds to say, and is highly unlikely to cause health damage. It also costs nothing. The point made here ad nauseum has been that CH got his way by threatening to sue SI. No one has said CH did sue SI, and to my knowledge he did not. The point I have made is that if one side can get their way by threatening to sue --- why cannot the other side get its way in the same manner? Why would SI be more intimidated by a threat to sue from CH than they would be by a threat (probably more likely just by a mention) of a lawsuit by the opposing side? My question is especially apt considering that you have always argued that the "other side" had the much more convincing case. I am missing the logic here. If CH had the weaker case, and if SI is known to cave in to mere threats (or even just possibilities) of lawsuits, why would SI not have caved in to the wishes of the other side, and not those of CH?