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 (68137)	11/25/2002 7:57:50 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I've made clear that you didn't use the word "sue." You had built in, I have admitted, deniability. And I think you only threatened, didn't mean to do it. Just meant us to be scared of being sued by a lawyer. Do you admit that? So since you say you have answered all this before, I take it as up-to-date confirmation that while you think saying a naughty word is a violation of SI's TOU, CH's behavior to Poet, whom he knew (as did and do you) to have been a victim of treatment that resulted in severe PTSD, was none of the following. Just to update. Not "harassment," Not "invasive of privacy," (eg the references to her divorce, custody arrangements, private communications) Not "vulgar" (really? Not vulgar?) and not "harmful". And oh yes, you also, to update, think his treatment of her was not "otherwise improper." I find it so implausible that anyone could take that position that I wondered if you'd rethought.