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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (90271)	12/1/2004 3:21:08 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I may have been wrong in assuming that Grainne meant that what you see is what you get, banning-wise. I wish now I hadn't asked her, though the regret is mitigated by gladness to know that she wasn't influence by something not in Jewel's posts. I would have preferred a reaction to this part of that post, I must say. It is at the heart of the mystery, to me, of your behavior. And I've often wondered whether if you had ever talked to Poet's husband, and were more aware of the effect on her and him of that stalking, those threats, and understood that PTSD is a real thing, and that the victims of bullies really do suffer, have to go to doctors, and in this case to a lawyer, whether you would have continued to insist that as long as the lawsuit-threat of CH's enabled him to threaten her with posting "intimate" exchanges, and stalk her from SI to IHub, he should be treated with respect while doing it.

To: epicure who wrote (90271)	12/2/2004 2:33:38 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

"Just so you know- Grainne said this "I have deliberately kept the banning process totally TRANSPARENT and can defend all my decisions, but they are my decisions and there are hundreds of places at SI where there are no standards of behavior at all, so everyone can go play over there. " The above should probably not have been taken as some statement on Grainne's part that all PM's to her that might affect her thought processes when she banned people would thus be made public. I don't think anyone else could possibly have taken it that way. I don't think it was what Grainne meant. But I am sure she will comment. ************* I made the above statement meaning transparent in the sense that all the posts were public. The Feelings thread is a totally public place. So anyone who has the time or interest to follow a conversation of posts could see what happened, why someone was banned or whatever. No one has ever sent me any PMs about banning anyone that I can think of. If they did, I would not reveal them, because they are PRIVATE. However, the reason Jewel is not welcome back is that he sent me rude PMs, and I revealed that fact only because people asked if he could come back. As I said in another post, I would not reveal them unless he denied that they existed, and then I am not sure what I would do, but I doubt that I would ever reveal a private message. Clear as mud? Sorry-time for bed!