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.

Pastimes : SI vs. iHub - Battle of the Boards Part 2 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Phil(bullrider) who wrote (4669)	8/27/2003 11:46:27 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5315

You know, what's interesting is that Matt hasn't ever said what TOU he thinks Bux violated. It would be so easy to say "here's the relevant quote from the TOU, here's what you said, that's a violation." Then we could all nod our heads and say, yup, Matt's right, Bux violated the TOU. That would be educational and helpful for everybody, I would think, and would immediately dispel any concerns about discriminatory enforcement of the TOU or arbitrary deletions of posts that don't violate the TOU. Or, Mat could come right out and say "I am the TOU. If I don't like a post, it goes, and tough nougies." Then people thinking of investing their money in a membership would know what the real rules were. But when asked straight up what rule the posts which Bux posted violated -- frankly, I didn't see any violation of the TOU in them, and they were far milder than many posts which have passed muster -- but then, I'm not Matt, obviously. Presumably he saw something I didn't. But it would be helpful to know what so that one doesn't inadvertently violate the TOU in future. Or to know that the written TOU don't really matter a snake's spit, and anybody who doesn't like arbitrary and capricious post deletions shouldn't be posting on IH. It's the uncertainty that causes turmoil.