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 (68124)	11/25/2002 7:30:36 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

You didn't tell me what you were thinking, did you? On purpose, right? Did you admit on SI that taking advantage of the ambiguity was perhaps not unintended? Did I ever mention to the Board of Ethics that CH had violated their GASP RULES of personal conduct? No. But he had. And those were RULES! So gee, I should have reported him like you report so many people on SI (CH notably excepted) for violating RULES. Oh wait. I forget. Maybe they're Guidelines? Ethical guidelines? Are those sacred, too, X? Or only RULES? The email "channel of communication outside of SI" (LOL)!)was one you and I already used, you silly girl! I got upset and you got hysterical and threatened to go to 3D (implying a lawsuit, seemed clear enough to us), because of the subject under discussion, we both know that. I've apologize 7,358 times for that couple of unwelcome emails that resulted in your threat to... shall we say... so as to avoid the Word Play...GO 3D? Is there anything else I can do to make you whole? How about I send you a dollar? So, X: ...will you confirm that you believe that naughty words are violations of the TOU and so you try to get the poster shut down by reporting them to SI, but that what CH did to Poet was NOT "harassment," "invasive of privacy," or "vulgar"? and oh yes, you think it also wasn't, "harmful"? or "otherwise improper"?