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 : Ad Astra - An open Memorial for fallen SI members -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: EL KABONG!!! who wrote (932)	9/18/2024 12:01:03 PM
From: robert b furman	2 Recommendations Recommended By Thehammer toccodolce Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1128

I wonder if Dan ever got his sailboat back home in the states? Rets in peace Dan. I always enjoyed your venturous life experiences. Bob

To: EL KABONG!!! who wrote (932)	9/18/2024 8:03:38 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	1 Recommendation Recommended By Thehammer Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1128

Was thinking same a few posts ago-- that there's a serious underlying principle here we need to discuss: to what degree can we -- as online personas -- control our own legacy? For example, does it make any sense to create a hidden profile option that reads something like this: - In the event of my death, I [ ] do [ ] do not, consent to SI allowing my obituary to be posted. - In the event of my death, please make public the following message: [message] Technically, you can't defame a dead person, so there's no legal obligation to not essentially unmask someone regardless of their stated choice above. But is there a moral one? In other words, would it make any sense to consider it a TOU violation if someone did something that was otherwise technically legal? - Jeff