The Question and Answer Board

[But Anyway]

Allow me then to illustrate Tinroad's precedent set for the "proper way to dispute a posting" by working backward:

Posted by: Tinroad
In reply to: D.inkie who wrote msg# 31169
Date:2/13/2003 7:13:02 AM
Post #of 31195

My thanks to D.inkie and TWOMIL for demonstrating the proper way to dispute a posting. The post in question will remain deleted due to the unqualified (and unsupported) claim re iPod.

Here is one of the two posts that falls under Tinroad's criteria for the proper way to dispute a posting:

Posted by: TWOMIL
In reply to: A deleted message
Date:2/13/2003 2:14:02 AM
Post #of 31195

Fact/Fiction:

When you write the following noted below, it demonstrates you are fully aware that e-mails and calls you make to eDigital partners can have a 'pestering' effect and can be disruptive to the good relationships eDigital has with their partners. Whatever your self-serving motives to be seen as 'right', your admission that your pestering behavior can interfere with eDigital's conduct of their business, IMO, leaves you wide
open to litigation directed at you by both shareholders and the company for this conduct.

Thanks for hanging yourself out to dry.


"To Tinroad and GoSilver" by FactorFiction

"Have no worry, I will call anyone that I need to verify my posts if you are going to hold me to the higher standard that you seem to indicate. However, as you both know, e.Digital's partners have always been inududated with such requests and it does not always make for good relationships. Let me know if you are going to maintain this standard for me and I will let those I call know why I am having to pester the executives of e.Digital's partners. In fact, I will send them links to this board."

Beyond abusing the spirit of the law by inappropriately threatening legal action (TWOMIL would be defined as a shareholder of e.Digital therefore the threat is implied), where in this message has the subject individual properly disputed the message in question?

Unfortunately the message which TWOMIL, under Tinroad's definition has disputed properly, was deleted. Leaving members of the community to dogmatically trust that Tinroad has properly enforced his new rule pertaining to proper argumentation.

Please read the deleted message and tell me, whether by Tinroad's definition of proper argumentation or by IHub's definition of terms of use, whose message, TWOMIL's or the author of the deleted message, warranted censorship, if either.

Bob I take no particular exception to rules enacted for specific threads by moderators of the thread or the conditions of posting of IHub if they are enforced judiciously. In this case, and in many cases pertaining to the EDIG thread, they have not.

The moderators of the EDIG thread, and those demanding a narrow TOU application on critical messages, endeavor to create a virtual boiler room.

But Anyway...