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 (67829)	11/25/2002 10:16:27 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

True. There are other people of understanding around, but the posse drove them off. Which is their goal, of course.

To: epicure who wrote (67829)	11/25/2002 10:50:12 AM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Does Cosmic think this is weird? Now as to the rules on SI- I have an interest in the rules on SI- not about the aliases who violate the rules. It's a game and there are rules. The rules are there to be used. If you violate the TOU you deserve to get terminated, shut down, or suspended. It's just a part of the game. Does cosmic think that you think the sexual-type slang words you try to get people kicked off for are harassing, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, obscene, tortuous, improper or otherwise objectionable , but that the sexual insinuations and plaguing and revealing confidences about personal life and threatening to post PM's and emails and lies CH tormented Poet with for months on end until she called his bluff weren't? Like, not even "otherwise objectionable"? How about "threatening," since CH repeatedly threatened to reveal PM's and emails containing, he claimed, intimacies of a... shall we say... certain nature? How about "vulgar"?Wasn't CH even "vulgar"? You and I have been that; not CH? How about "invasive of another's privacy"? He not only "threatened" that, he did it, with references to her family! How about "harmful," which was obvious to all even before she got sick from it? Wasn't CH "harmful," and therefore violating the TOU? Or does the TOU get applied quite selectively by X of the "Rules" -- silence them if they use a bad word, but defend to the death their right to threaten, abuse and harm. cosmic is right. It is weird, here. But the weirdest of all is you, X of the "Rules."