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 (16)	12/31/1997 12:53:00 PM
From: IceShark	Respond to of 708

Barry, All I'm stating is the facts, ma'am, (to paraphrase Sgt. Friday.) If the investment went sour the lawsuit would not only have merit, it would be damn near a slam-dunk. Don't get me going on the US legal enviroment and moral shift in blaming someone else - anyone else - for everything that goes wrong. Now that you have got me going, I'll give you one of my favorite stupid lawsuits that pretty much gives the lay of the land in US legal liability. Its a favorite in part, because my Pop was an engineer at the company. A moron buys a lawnmower - the gasoline engine powered type that you push around to mow the lawn. While mowing his lawn, this particular bonehead notices that his hedge could use some trimming. So, you guessed it, he picks up the lawnmower and tries to trim the top of the hedge. Things go wrong and he ends up trimming off a few body parts. He sues because the mower wasn't designed to prevent such a mishap, nor did it come with explicit instructions not to try trimming hedges! The only unfortunate thing was he didn't kill himself in the venture, thereby reducing the damage claim. -g- One dark maxim in the legal community is if you accidentaly hit a pedestrian with your car, back up and run over him a couple of times to make sure he is dead. -ng- Anyway, the SEC and, more importantly, State investment regulators are pretty strict on this type of thing and from what I saw, Zeev crossed the line, plain and simple. Unfortunate, and as I said, I will miss his contributions. Regards, DWW

To: yard_man who wrote (16)	12/31/1997 2:13:00 PM
From: Brian Moore	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 708

Removing Zeev from SI is wrong. There is no SI rule prohibiting his actions. The TERMS OF USE have a few rules, but none concerning the discussion of business matters via email. Why, I ask, does SI provide an option to post your email address if actually we are not allowed to send each other email? Only Tastes Like Chicken could find an answer to this question. Spamming is bad. But this Zeev fellow is hardly a spammer. This is the mistake SI has made. Of course, SI does not want people advertising products on the threads or spamming people with a boatload of emails. But Zeev did not do this. This is America. Talking business and proposing a deal is a good thing, not a crime. How could a valued contributor, who sent selected people private email about business, be stomped by rules that are supposed to be aimed at spammers? (1) SI should have a clear set of rules. (Actually, they do, and Zeev has not violated any of them. See Terms of Use.) (2) SI should come out of their virtual office and make a statement. Obviously a lot of people are very concerned. What's going on, SI???