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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (42357)	12/3/2005 10:52:23 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I don't think I suggested that. But talking behind a person's back when that person is unable to respond or defend publicly is an unfair advantage: hence the rule. In this case the post was addressed To You. It was a response TO THINGS you had said about said poster. And it was the next morning to your post. Nobody expects all posters to check the ban list before every single post they make to make certain the recipient has not just been banned. That would obviously be over the top. If she had responded to someone else (she didn't), if she had responded in a manner irrelevant to your content (she didn't), if her post harmed you in any way (it didn't), and if she had intended such (she didn't), and if all these things gave reasonable grounds to consider that she may have KNOWN you were unable to publicly respond (they didn't)--then the charge would bear scrutiny (it doesn't). As it happens--NONE of these circumstances inform the matter. Let us get back to thread business, you COMMIE LOVER!