Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction Message Board

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.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (51575)	9/25/2006 2:41:32 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) of 90947

LOL! Baker and X are having a toadyism tizzy this morning. Boo Hoo! Here Baker voices the "argument" that the number of bans justifies how abusive and capricious a moderator may be! HA! Message 22845770 X chirps in with a confused and muddled tail chasing series of spews that have no relevance to the issues whatsoever. She obviously thinks that because SHE dislikes a poster they should have no access to a thread that she wants to post on. She even goes so far as to conflate "a private business which allows users to cut up the business space in to small chunks for various discussions" with the idea of contractual rights to engage in public and private discussions on threads providing you are acting within the terms of use re: your behavior and your respect and your comments, etc. etc. etc. She (and Baker) want to decide who drinks at the fountain and who comes into the book store. What a pair! Message 22845876 Baker comes back with this hoot! "The analogy they don't understand is that SI is like any public business. Anyone who likes can come in if they meet the basic conditions (like No Shoes-No Shirt-No Service). But if they act out and become disruptive in that establishment, they will be asked to leave. If they refuse they can be arrested for trespassing and disturbing the peace." He admits it is public space but pretends that some pigs (Animal Farm) are more equal than others. He pretends that the moderators (many nominated on "moron" or other such threads--and rightfully so) are simply enforcing the terms of use which govern the SI contract--rather than being selfish subjective capricious abusive jerks!! Both Baker and X take the line that SI is about THEM and has nothing to do with the rights of others. If THEY don't like a person on "their" thread because of color or any other arbitrary prejudice such as political affiliation or religious belief or sexual orientation then THEY could care less that others on any one thread DO wish to dialogue with that banned person on that thread and in that context and within the milieu of the overall discussion that they have been involved in with a number of partcipants dialoguing back and forth. Baker or X would say, well...take it to PM. That is the abusive, selfish, and stupid answer of mental weaklings. Reading their toadyism this morning has been a real lark! They keep trying to pretend that they are just applying the terms of use against posters in violation of their SI contract. NOT!!! Who are they fooling!!! Notice that there are no restrictions on how abusive a moderator may be. None whatsoever. It is a meadow full of clover for people with severe personality disorders. My meadow, my hay--ME ME ME! Oh..an afterthought: Another misrepresentation that X is particularly fond of is the idea that people dialoguing on "her" thread is synonymous with "associating" with "her". It hardly deserves a response but there are undoubtedly many on SI who are taken in by such drivel. Even when they post to her directly they are still not associating with her or requiring her to participate in the discussion. I mean...DUH! This brings up an interesting point, though. Why could not SI permit all posters to shut out any posts from those they do not wish sending them mail?? OH GEE...MY BAD! They already have that! YES, THEY DO! So what is the argument for the right to abuse other posters in dialogue with one another?? Well, what do you know--there isn't one. What a surprise that there should be no valid argument for giving some pigs power over the discussions of others (Animal Farm, again). What a huge surprise that the "arguments" are mindless tirades or clicking on ban buttons. Great arguments! Again...these people have the "ignore" button so WHY DO THEY INSIST ON THE POWER TO DICTATE WHOM OTHERS ON "THEIR" THREAD WILL DIALOGUE WITH?? What is their problem if not a maniacal obsession with self and a thoroughgoing disregard for the rights of others??

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next