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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Google Facts Zone -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Dave who wrote (7)	11/14/2007 10:08:32 PM
From: KeepItSimple	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11

A dozen other accounts of mine? Got some proof of that? Let me guess- even questioning the judgement of the holy SI Admin is an account wiping offense itself, eh? It certainly doesnt help any that I routinely attack the most overvalued POS stock in the market, Google- which just happens to be the major source of revenue for SI. And I'm sure it wouldn't bother you to delete my paid account, like you said in your post, after all my account didn't cost you personally 200 bucks or anything. --------- At least a dozen other accounts of yours that were opened in violation of the TOU have been wiped out along with all of their posts en masse without any regard whatsoever to board or content. It wouldn't bother me in the least to add this one to it.

To: SI Dave who wrote (7)	11/15/2007 1:29:42 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 11

David? You there? HE DIDN'T START THIS THREAD! I DID! Being Admin, I'm quite sure you can determine different computers (and probably different ISPs) have been used since the beginning of both accounts. There was a time when Admin required a bit more proof than just their supposition that a poster had multiple accounts. As a matter of fact, there were posters who HAD multiple accounts with the knowledge and apparent blessings of Admin. Care to deny that? Now if you actually HAVE any proof, what is it? Do you remember laura_bush, Dave? Everybody on this site knew that was bonusss_in_austin. She as much as admitted it several times. You do remmber that it wasn't because she had been previously banished and opened a new account with false info that got her terminated again, right? She actually had to do something which was a violation of TOU. Now, in consideration of the above, why isn't KIS entitled to something like the same consideration?