"... anybody here [interested] in this model..."
Russ,
"It's about how I utilize this format: for investing.
... not so sure I want any responsibility whatsoever for any
investing ideas, good, bad or indifferent, unless those on
the other end are very like minded, independent and have
some degree of sophistication..."
No need to wave like a flag in front of those who post here
the TOS Terms of Service each Silicon Investor member
agreed to upon joining, which included the agreement to
allow Silicon Investor to change add delete modify the TOS
agreement with the understanding that if a member choose
not to accept such that the member should leave upon the
completeion of their membership. If not, then they will be terminated
upon activity by them in TOS violations.
For sure the TOS stated up front as i remember years ago when
i became one of the first to join after a period of time that only
a few experienced people used SI for a while, that the TOS spoke
about responsibility etc.
My long babble here Russ is just my way to point out to you that
this moderated form of thread was created because many Si members
like ole49r/gold_tutor would violate not the letter of the TOS,
but would it's spirit. So to me Bob Johnson has a false impression
on the nature of a moderated thread like this, as it is not to lessen
the freedom of speech, but to ensure that all have it under the condition
that a ole49r/gold_tutor type will abuse the rights' of others.
Most moderated threads place limits so that a certain agenda
of the creator of that thread can be exercised, of which i am a
good example with the Tyhee thread that i have banned about
two dozen Si members prior to them evn trying topost there for
the simple reason that i want pro-Tyhee & pro-friendly posts only,
which will be changed once Tyhee become successful or goes
belly-up and ceases to exist. Mt reasoning is that currently there
is very little good hard concrete facts or news to counter that
bashing and off topic type posts many folks find a desire to do.
For you to create this thread as moderated had as upfront purpose
the exclusion of ole49r/gold_tutor as a person which damaged
the type of thread which you desired to post on.
Yes, and it was a good and proper move by you to obtain for your
own reasons a place that you decided was proper for your usage,
and Hellooooooooo World, everyone except Bob followed you here.
Golly, if ole49r/gold_tutor's activity as so "correct" as she stated,
plus her telling us all of her greatness and value, then proof in pudding
hopefully with lots of REAL whipped creme, that oopsie what she
discovered was a NOT.
Hopefully Bob Johnson is seeing that this thread's moderation
is not a refusual to allow a flow of ideas, but only to fense in
the ole49r/gold_tutor(s) that destroy and damage in THEIR name of RIGHTs.
Yes, we all have rights and sometimes to protect them we have to
deny the rights of others so that we can keep and exercise ours.
Bob will say innocent until proven guilty this ole49r/gold_tutor,
which sounds not only good but something i hope will apply
to me also, so yes i want it to apply to all everywhere all the time.
But oopsie Bob, the activity on the Gold & Silver thread over these
past few days after this thread was created has been a sort of trial
with ole49r/gold_tutor's activity as evidence, and yes found GUILTY.
ok Bob, now come on over,
the vote has been taken on-going and so far
Not Guilty = 1 (lorne)
and Guilty = all others(?)
ok, sorry Bob, i understand that you have trouble,
find it very hard to accept that a moderated thread is as i say.
But Bob, think of it this way,
ole49r/gold_tutor was found GUILTY
and rather than send her away to JAIL
we all except you left,
and think of the Gold & Silver thread as HER jail
and we all came over here to Russ's new thread
and placed ourselves OUTSIDE the jail area.
Soooooooooooo Bob,
its as if you choose to "remain" inside a Jail'ed area.
not good Bob
no not good
some of us visited this jail area
and yes, Yike(s)
"... ideal forum model for me would be conducted by
a Jim Steele or Claude Cormier (maybe both?)
to a smaller group of liked minded PM investors."
Sounds great for those "inside" this group,
but since Claude and Jim already obtain fees from
what is their profession to sell this info type you identify
as being inside this forum, then legal issues might appear.
Would Jim and Claudes activity in the group with you be viewed
as an Union or Intersection model with their subscriber activity?
Would you ever ask Jim or Claude to exclude any info you present
in the group from making its way to their subscriber base?
Seems like it would happen unless you exclude your activity
in areas that you wish info not be made public through their
subscriber base.
"... the classic twenty or thirty smart, focused people
that can get much more done together than any of us
could do alone... be a constant mutual learning curve."
The following url investor site would not allow "be secretive"
but could deliver a better forum for you v Si.
investorshub.com
d:oug |
