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 : The Perils and Pitfalls of Investing With "Friends" -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Dave who wrote (208)	10/29/2004 1:48:17 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 377

But, individually, if a person had known that he solicited Poet, Michal, the multiple parties for the same "dental operation", etc.... an additional step in caution would probably have been taken. So in hindsight, it actually was a mass solicitation, but the "BCC" list was a bit more selective than your whole membership; rather a selected and still sizable subset. "...and were not a mass solicitation to random, unknown parties."

To: SI Dave who wrote (208)	10/29/2004 1:55:29 PM
From: Done, gone.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 377

I think there are a number of ways you (SI) can respond to what transpired. One of them is yours (Dave's): too late, not our fault, not our responsibility. All true, as far as I can tell. However, another response, the one Poet is possibly hoping for is to ask: what can we (SI) do to improve the ToU in order to better inform members, and thereby possibly minimize the problem?

To: SI Dave who wrote (208)	10/29/2004 1:58:25 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 377

So, if this happens again, say some other high-profile member starts a new and similarly dubious enterprise, SI's only response will be to give him a job and feature him on its front page? Is that really the best precedent we wish to set? Actually, featuring on the front page isn't a bad idea, but perhaps in a slightly different sense! <g> P:>>And make no mistake, I am hereby reporting it. D:>Sorry, but too late. Besides, even knowing what I've read here, I'm not entirely sure that there would have been justification of administrative intervention in the matter.