Matt,
I can't believe that you don't understand this:
(from my previous post)
It did not occur to you that she might not like the link being there, but because she said that she wouldn't delete posts on that board, that she couldn't apply the rules differently to stuff said about her.
Yes, she could have done something about it, but not if she wanted to maintain her integrity for implementing the TOS in an unbiased manner.
And as long as she was arguing that posts with links to personal information should be allowed, it would also have been hypocritical to delete one about her. She has been very consistent in in that if she was saying that it was ok to post links to Francois' info, then she can't delete the ones with her info. But once you made the edict and once you knew about jmhollen's post, you should have deleted it.
She's very out in the open already, by her own choice.
Are you saying that since she is "out in the open already, by her own choice" that this justified jmhollen posting her info? Or just that it justifies you not deleting the message? Is that why you included this sentence? If not, why did you include this sentence?
And are you saying that Francois is not out in the open and by his own choice? Seems to me that he is even further out in the open by his own choice. Hell, he posts under his own real name, mmmary doesn't even do that.
BTW: Just to be clear, what I am arguing here is not that the links should or should not be allowed, I am arguing that you are applying your rules differently to different members.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
