Oh yeah, something could happen to Lola or her family.
Cheezus! and all because I complained about spam posts!
Lisa please tell me you're not a drug queen and nobody wants to kill you. Now I'm getting worried <ggg> or maybe it should be <ng>
Not trying to do a plug for SI here but when I warned SI Jeff that a certain person associated with a certain site had threatened to post personal private information about SI posters he monitored that person's posts and deleted what was not appropriate immediately. He also suspended this individual from posting on SI for various violations of the Terms of Use.
But here instead of a reprimand for that person posting one of her site subscribers personal information (a person who was not even involved in the feud with her) the offender is defended by one of the owners of the site. One could write it off as inexperience but I don't think the law would see it that way should harm come to me or my family or any of the people who have had their private information posted by this person.
Matt could have easily stated that Lisa and Lola are not the same person but chose not to do so. I wonder why that is.
So, is it your position that if a COB posts a lie, then the victim should have the ability to refute it?
No. It's my position that if you believe someone is lying, you should refute it rather than deleting it. If a person uses this site for personal attacks, harassment, etc, I don't agree that they should retain the "ability" to continue doing so.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
