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 : and there was no one left to speak for me -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (233)	9/29/1998 10:10:00 PM
From: William W. Dwyer, Jr.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 276

Bill, Yes, Info Dart has been "offed" before for particularly violent behavior, bordering on criminal behavior. He is, as they say, a multi-offender. No one should be surprised to see him gone. He repeatedly violated the S.I. Terms of Use and was particularly offensive, threatening, and vulgar in his replies to Len. S.I. is better-off without some people, unfortunately. Bill

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (233)	9/29/1998 10:44:00 PM
From: Len	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 276

Good luck to all my friends at SI. This implies there were any. Would anyone like to stand up and be counted? Perhaps Id will now respond through you, but i do have a few parting shots: ID was a head case, and it was clear to see, pretty much from the beginning. I have many times pointed out, with the appropriate supporting information, how this man could not be the person he kept insisting he wanted others to be. He insisted on honesty, but was dishonest himself. He insisted on maturity, yet he was childish, and resorted to schoolyard tactics when he ran out of other material. He accused others of doing exactly what he had done, astonishingly, and chose to obfuscate when challenged to provide specifics. How convenient it seemed.... make the rules, and if anyone should dare to challenge, just change the rules, or refuse to answer, by proclaiming the questioner's motives suspect. Great house of cards, but sure to fall, as I predicted to everyone. I knew he would eventually go over the line, as this obsession of his would drive him to it. It's a shame, really, since he had a lot to offer, if he could have just gotten off this God kick of his, and had tried to mingle with the common man. Apparently, he felt he couldn't do that, and instead chose to drone on about subjects that 99.99% of SI were just not interested in. His "..best efforts to improve the speech here on SI.." proved futile, as evidenced by the abysmal failure of every single thread he created, save this one. And why this one? Because he brought me into the rub, and spent more time trying to prove himself not the social misfit he was, than discussing the thread's important issue. Interesting to note, also, as I had continually said, that he so needs to get the last shots in, that he had to ask Bill Jackson to post his final words, as if anyone cared. Not to mention that last shot at me, and at SI. I GUARANTEE that SI didn't drop him without contacting him. Despite what anyone may think of them, they don't act that way. And me and my penis? Laughable, again. For the last time, ID, you friggin' liar,<g> I ABSOLUTELY NEVER MADE ANY SUCH REMARKS, EVEN REMOTELY. This is obvious by your refusal to provide the proof I demanded. Perhaps you will have Mr. Jackson post such proof, if you have it. Of course, that will never be forthcoming, as we all know. I resist the temptation to dance upon his grave, as I have become something I'm not real proud of, during this spat of ours. But, in the end, I hope to be forgiven, and understood my needing to reply to this silly man. By the way, I had been ruminating on the issue of whether I should complain to SI for this last set of accusations re: my penis. I guess someone beat me to it. I give them a hand. Len