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 (66814)	11/16/2002 7:42:58 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You know nothing about administration or management, clearly. It doesn't operate like courts of law. It is standard for administrators to work things out using discretion, and administrators who have the responsibility for running programs are given the authority to do that, if the programs are to be run intelligently and creatively. Keeping things running well and smoothly isn't, as I've said, all about crimes and punishments. It's about management. Had there been a real "crime" a real punishment could have been imposed. LOL. And real lawsuit could have been defended. Which wasn't worth it to SI, of course. They're a business not a criminal justice system. You have disgraced yourself, X, and you're getting deeper and deeper into a moral quagmire. You have become an ice person, and to defend your icy heartlessness you have claimed knowledge of things of which you know nothing, but which are very sad, and you defend a creepy, stalking male who you yourself say "got off on" some sordid business, and, oddly, attack those who gave him what you say he enjoyed -- and now you look like someone who doesn't know how the world works. I love this, it's so X: Had there been a real "crime" a real punishment could have been imposed. It's funny not only because it's clueless, but also because you used "could" and not "would." Of course it "could" have. We know why it wasn't. SI told us. They "had to remove the toorabout," they said. Had to. They're a business. It was an economic decision.

To: epicure who wrote (66814)	11/17/2002 12:01:57 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Wrong. But you should be used to that. An SI toorabout is imposed by SI. It ain't voluntary. Now, generally there will be an aggrieved party that asked for the toorabout. But the other party doesn't get a choice. The toorabout is imposed on them by SI Admin. Violating it will result in a long suspension or termination. The toorabout is for childish people who need a parental figure to interpose between them. The toorabout is for sickies like Chris, Chriskisser. It is clearly not a real punishment. That depends. Is termination a "real" punishment? Is anything real to you? If reality came up and kicked you in the **, would you hear the "THUMP!"? Had there been a real "crime" a real punishment could have been imposed.* And sometimes the provocateur is given a suspension when the toorabout is imposed. I'm afraid you are the irrational one, as usual. I'm afraid you are the ignorant one. As usual.