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: epicure who wrote (63696)	10/24/2002 7:44:24 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"It takes a bit more than that to be harassing, imo. There is a very fine line between annoy and harass. There is even some overlap depending on the situation. When behavior is directed toward another person it may be annoying and when you persist after being told that it is annoying it definitely crosses the line and becomes harassment (with few exceptions). When, a behavior is directed at someone who tells you to "stop" and substantiates beyond all doubt that they feel harmed by the continuance, it becomes harassment at the least. PS: I recognize that your "opinion" trumps all else.

To: epicure who wrote (63696)	10/24/2002 8:08:01 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

You just jump from accusation and evasion to accusation and evasion. You never respond to points. I suppose if you did you'd have to adjust your sacred opinion. It is not a discussion if one party feels no obligation to be responsive. It's a boring and stupid way to argue. Now I'm supposed to substantiate what everyone on the thread except fragile you, who freak out at three emails and think somebody's whispering in your mail slot, saw, over weeks and weeks of CH's vile harassment of Poet? You want repostings of CH's vileness? Are you serious? If you thought it wasn't harassment, threatening, slanderous, improper, abusive of Poet's privacy then, just stay with your opinion. You make yourself into a sideshow. You know perfectly well that CH threatened over and over to post personal, by implication intimate, information about Poet. You know he said he had it but wasn't posting it only because he needed her permission. When she gave him permission he had to back down, and he was exposed not only as a threatener but as a liar. BTW: I did the same thing? I threatened someone that I was going to expose "private information" about them? What are you talking about? Go down that "alley," please. Post my threat. Let's see if that's as true as your recent unpretty twisting of a single confidential phonecall I had to your purposes.