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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (46991)	9/4/2004 8:27:29 PM
From: SI Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

CalculatedRisk, I've moved past the banning issue, which isn't that big a deal. The means by which it was accomplished is far more bothersome, now that I've had some time to consider the ramifications. I'll advise all concerned parties in the next day or two. Dave

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (46991)	9/4/2004 8:57:43 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Cr, I have granted you that responsibility and I will decide to take it away if I feel it violates my philosophy. However, I have given some thought of what SI Admin Dave has said about the breach of trust of PMs. And here is my take on it. In the past I have sent PMs and the receipient has gone and flashed that PM on a thread with the argument that once somebody receibes a PM , it becomes the receipient's property and that person many decide to disposition that PM in any manner. I have been through this with a few posters on Si and I have decided that the PM is the sender's intent to let it be a "private" mail but the receiver does not have to agree. It is indeed a very interesting legal issue. But as SI Dave says that they will have to rule on this and let us know. And then off course there is the issue of how does a thread host moderate a thread when he/she is away for a length of time.