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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (21334)	6/17/2006 4:24:35 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541684

It's the exclusionary rule that is the issue. Yes, I guess we are talking past each other. I started out this last round addressing that very point but my argument apparently got lost. "If you look at it straight on and go no further. But what are the implications of that? If you take away the penalty for not knocking, is the net effect of that not identical to that of removing the requirement to knock?" Message 22551602 You may prefer your conspiracy theory/hidden agenda interpretation but mine is a viable alternative. I am focused on intent. I don't presume to know their intent. If you set the intent question aside for the sake of argument, you can look at it as a back-door change to the knock rule, which is the net effect. I recognize that they didn't change the knock rule directly but indirectly, they did.