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 (67652)	11/24/2002 10:41:18 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't have many problems with anything- except shutting people down regarding speech, and taking things offline to make it "real" in 3d. I don't even really have a problem with people who use family stuff- as long as it doesn't violate the TOU. I bring it up mainly because the people who use it claim it is Just Awful and Terrible, and then go ahead and do it anyway. You've got to admit that is pretty funny. You are pretty funny. I guess this was another failure on your part to read between the lines. You aren't very good at that are you?

To: E who wrote (67652)	11/24/2002 11:07:10 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 82486

"It was a question that anticipated the precise ethically dead, lawyer "word play" response it got from you! That's why I asked" WHICH WAS THIS! "He might be right. I can remember some pretty wild "rumors" about many people" He might be "RIGHT", E! Maybe he started a PM "rumour" with somebody he hates! The decent thing to do when somebody inserts a hateful "possible rumour" is to resist clarifying the issue ;-), so that unfounded accusations do not damage a person's reputation: the thing to do is to give the "rumour" some credibility by pretending that the premise is a given, and by "wondering" about the details... Whatever you do, don't say: "that is a really ugly rumour. It is a wrongful thing to say unless you have some evidence that it is backed up by facts. Either back up your statement, or apologise." That is probably what the letter X was/is planning to say. She was just too overwhelmed by the implications which leaped to her mind at the time...worrying that a prisoner (such as Jewels) was actually posting his ideas. I wonder if that is why Jewels changed his name? Do you lose your original internet account when you are in lock-up?