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: Matt Brown who wrote (4749)	9/1/2003 9:48:55 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5315

I'm not complying with how the system works? Why do I need to remind you that the first thing I did after you deleted the post that caused my suspension was to contact you privately as specified in the Ihub User Agreement. I remained polite and courteous while you were arrogant, abusive and used vulgar language to cut short the dialogue. After sending you 6 polite and constructive e-mails and receiving only 4 minimal replies that did nothing to foster a resolution, you stopped corresponding with me. Not until then did I air my grievances here. Now you tell me I'm not complying with "how the system works"? And that I am making things complex? I followed the procedure as laid out in the Ihub user agreement and you were unresponsive and abusive. "I'm done arguing the issue on SI. If the matter truly bugs you, you'll take the olive branch I've offered on IH." I guess you could say it bugs me that I can't use the service I paid $129 to subscribe to. Is the "olive branch" you've "offered" me the e-mail that begins with a "<yawn>" and ends with "Your rebuttal?"? Hmmm...That's the first olive branch I've seen that begins with a "<yawn>" and ends with a request for a rebuttal. Do you even know what an olive branch is? Your "olive branch" e-mail makes the same charges about my post that I already responded to in my previous e-mails to you last week (before I brought this public) and now you want me to rebutt those charges all over again? Namely that my post was a personal attack and that I wrote it to cause trouble. That was not my motive but if you believe otherwise I doubt I can change your mind. Read the e-mails I sent you last week which addressed your charges in a courteous manner. I find it ridiculous that you want me to answer to these charges again when I have already done so in a manner consistent with the Ihub User Agreemement and all you did was swear at me and tell me to grow up. A true olive branch would have been to start over where you went wrong, at the point you started swearing at me. At that point you could address the response I e-mailed to you last week and you could address it like a responsible adult instead of like a little kid having a hissy fit. My post was trying to establish that Jim Lurgio is one of the figures most visible and most respected by IDCC investors and that his admission of selling all his shares could very well have caused the sharp drop in price monday morning. I provided specific facts to support my claim that Jim is very well-known and highly regarded by IDCC investors but you took exception to it. You could tell me specifically which parts of the deleted post need to be removed or modified in such a way that still allows me to convey the intended message without running afoul of your interpretation of the TOU agreement. Bux The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way. ~ ~ ~ Josh Billings