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: IceShark who wrote (15)	12/31/1997 11:54:00 AM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 708

Dan, There are so many people giving advice on these threads. For goodness sake, such a lawsuit wouldn't have any more merit than a lawsuit against SI because I recommended buying company XYZ which I have a large interest in and somebody bought it and it tanks. SI can make up whatever rules it wants and I'll abide by them if I want to play, but that doesn't mean that they are the best rules. I have contacted folks I've met here offline for advice on technology, investing, etc. I fail to see how that is any different. Hopefully, this admission won't get me kicked off!

To: IceShark who wrote (15)	12/31/1997 12:08:00 PM
From: Harold Feller	Respond to of 708

Afternoon all: Yes, Zeev broke one of the rules, maybe its a big one. But, I think that booting off SI is a little overboard. We have all received emails from corporations and others alike to subscribe here, buy there,etc. There are 100,000+ posters on SI pushing one thing or another each month. geez. He has my vote for reinstating. Dr Zeev, send Jill some flowers!

To: IceShark who wrote (15)	12/31/1997 12:21:00 PM
From: Timelord	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 708

First of all, Zeev didn't solicit through SI, he solicited through private email. I don't see how this exposes SI to any lawsuits. By that logic, SI is guilty by association for anything that is posted on its threads. Have you ever posted a positive or negative comment about a stock on SI? This could certainly be construed as a solicitation if the requisite SEC disclaimers are not used. Are we all subject to lawsuits? Maybe we should just throw in the towel and go back to watching those fascinating little fish swim around our screens... <VBG> Oh, and are you prone to quoting or pasting articles and comments you read on the web - seems to me there are some copyright laws being trampled daily by a good percentage of the folks on SI. There are any number of obnoxious individuals who deserve banishment much more than Zeev. I say a warning and reinstatement is appropriate in this case. Alex

To: IceShark who wrote (15)	12/31/1997 5:32:00 PM
From: Jack Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 708

Dan: You are right, in a "letter of the law" sense, if indeed the assumption is correct regarding the reason for Zeev's banishment. I also received his e-mail, and found it interesting and provocative. I thought no more of it. Rules are rules, but I submit that Zeev is such a respected individual, and has added so much to the intellectual turgor of SI, that he should be reinstated by the webmistress. I will e-mail her with this request. Zeev, in turn should assure the webmistress that he will follow the rules in the future. Most of us seem to agree. Lets keep our petitions going out and get Zeev back in the game! Jack