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 : Georgia Bard's Corner -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Shoot1st who wrote (4281)	7/27/1998 12:32:00 PM
From: TEDennis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9440

How about a nice link to the posts that identify the other individual? I'm curious what this little fracas is all about, but not enough to go back through 4200+ posts to figure it out. TED

To: Shoot1st who wrote (4281)	7/27/1998 12:45:00 PM
From: Ga Bard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9440

One does not need permission to make public any communications. That is the risk taken by the sender. YOur alluding to legal knowledge is humorous. Oh really ... well how about this .... B. You agree not to use the service for illegal purposes or for the transmission of material that is unlawful, harassing, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, obscene, tortious, improper or otherwise objectionable, or that infringes or may infringe the intellectual property or other rights of another. I am transparent...everybody with an ounce of intelligence knows what I stand for.<.i> Yep according to your post you are a burnt day/ momentum trader that frequented the day trading threads till you got caught and are ticked which you have that right. Why all the effort..here....If you were not afraid that I may start looking closely at your behavior.......you would have forgotten about the post by now. Oh I have my behavior being looked at more than you will ever know. LOL more than you will ever know. However, aside from the obvious why would I forget a post that is going to be a precedence ... Why have "private" messages if they are not going to be private. I am not asking for it to be removed for violation of terms of use by SI. I really do not care whether it is or isn't that is the parties within the PM right to request that. No sweat off my nose either way. Every time you open your mouth about this, your foot goes farther down your throat. Then it will be exposed out by the time I am though. Why not simply answer the questions ... you will not do that. You came here for a purpose and I do not like this thread being uses for your personal agenda and tactics. SO Mr. DD you can't find the name on your own thread after 2 people have told you where to look. Similar DD in MIDL I would suspect. Oh I know exactly who it is absolutely and been in PM with them also same as you. Maybe you would enlighten us with the post of the missing name with a post off this thread. It is not my responsibility to be a part of your agenda. Finish what you started. Oh an cheap shots about MIDL are typical from people like you. Just finish what you started. Who is the second party the ******** stands for and since you brought up the protecting because the one sentence is taken out of context why not provide the whole PM register for the Pre PMs and Post PMs so we can get a true feel for the conversation as a whole then I will shut up.. GB

To: Shoot1st who wrote (4281)	7/27/1998 6:08:00 PM
From: Binder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9440

One does not need permission to make public any communications Is publishing a private message against the law? Depends on who you ask, and more importantly, whose law. Looks like the Terms of Service for SI make it pretty clear that it's not cool to do that here, but I doubt seriously you will go to prison for it, and I doubt that you could ever be found legally liable for damages to another party caused by it. Nonetheless, it IS a big SI no-no, so it probably shouldn't be done here. I think the point that should be questioned here is not that of a legal aspect, but rather an ethical one. Once something like this is done, a trust is broken. I am not talking about the trust between you and Big Dog either, rather, the trust that any other person here who had been thinking of sending you a PM (about ANYTHING) has now lost as well. Just like the female interns at the White House are probably not lining up to have lunch with Linda Tripp, I am afraid you too will be shunned for betraying a confidence, even if it was done for what you thought was someone else's better interest. To some people, the end may justify the means. To others, it may not. I am not involved in this argument, so my opinion shouldn't mean squat to anyone here. However, I wouldn't dine with Ms. Tripp either. :-) Binder