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 : From A to Zeev" -- SI Sacks Zeev -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (6)	12/31/1997 10:17:00 AM
From: Charles A. King	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 708

Zeev's problems with SI may be due to his responses on the RMIL thread, a dangerous place. I also received an email from him about soliciting possible interest in an enterprise which he sent to those he deemed to be risk tolerent and reasonable people. The folks at SI have been helpful to me in the past. I sent them an email vouching for Zeev and requesting that they consider reinstating him. I hope they do. Charles

To: yard_man who wrote (6)	12/31/1997 11:17:00 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 708

Barry; Same with me, I was contacted a few months ago about the same thing, and as a non prospectus private solicitation among a few people I am not aware of any law or basic principal being broken. I suspect that SI is bending over backwards to be ethical. Of course the real crooks and brokers all have false names and handles and escape, while poor zeev who did nothing on line gets snookered by one of those crooks who posted his private e-mail. Bill

To: yard_man who wrote (6)	12/31/1997 11:39:00 AM
From: IceShark	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 708

Barry, Kicking him off for money solicitation isn't ridiculous, and if that is the reason, I guess I will have to reluctantly side with SI. There are all sorts of pesky problems with soliciting investment capital, and if SI wants to draw a sharp line, so be it. Apart from any moral or ethical issues, they would get sucked into any sour investment lawsuit so fast it would make your head spin - and SI would turn into a puff of smoke - and smoke is banned, come midnight, in California. -g- Frankly, I'm kind of suprised a bright guy like brother Zeev did this in the first place, much less kept it up for several months (I tossed my miscellaneous messages in year-end house keeping, but I think I got his solicitation towards the end of summer.) I guess it just proves the old cliche that even smart people do some pretty dumb things. I suspect that Zeev will be in web-jail for quite awhile, and he will not be allowed back on if SI knows who they are dealing with. Why? The lawsuit angle. I can just hear the plaintiff's attorney grilling Jill about how she let a known ........ Too bad it worked out this way, 'cause I enjoyed and respected Zeev's comments. Regards, DWW

To: yard_man who wrote (6)	12/31/1997 12:29:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Respond to of 708

Barry, same here. I was afraid this was the reasoning, but I think the best response would be to whoever complained, that they simply inform Zeev of their feelings, which I feel absolutely certain would have been honored. You're not required to make your email address available. I get tons of stuff from others not posting on SI, but have gotten my address thru that forum. While I consider this a form of "junk mail", it's something I tolerate in order to be open for other opportunities. Jill, please re-instate Zeev, his contributions to SI have been superlative and there are many like myself who feel we can learn and benefit from Zeev and others like him. Thanks, bp