Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : SI Beta Site Launch - 7/01/99 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (1114)	7/31/1999 4:48:00 PM
From: John Biddle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2340

I am opposed to an ignore button. While there are advantages, the disadvantages outweigh them considerably, imho. There is a thread somewhere on the topic. I have read that entire thread. There is much good there, but not a single argument against the addition of an "ignore" feature which holds water under scrutiny. It's been largely touts of non-reporting bulletin board 'stocks' who've asked for it. And they wouldn't really use it - they would just pretend to use it, and advocate its use to their victims. First, I resent the accusation that by wanting to ignore someone, for whatever reason, I'm a tout of cheap stocks. I've read many messages for the 'ignore' feature and most have been cogent and well argued. I don't remember a single one being anything like the posters you're worried about, though since I don't read any of those boards I don't pretend to know what goes on in them. I believe that an "ignore" feature would seriously hurt such touts, because they will likely be the most ignored people on SI. If they tried to get everyone to "ignore" a negative poster (the big fear of SI as I gather) they will quickly be seen as what they are, and just increase the number of people ignoring them. Please, Go2net - don't hand the carpstock touts another weapon. I do not believe that "ignore" could be used effectively as a "weapon" by the so-called "carpstock touts". I have indicated above why I think it's use would actually hurt them. BTW, I've never heard of the term carpstock, though I'm familiar with tout. Would you mind defining it? It seems to me that a much better way to handle this legitimate issue would be for SI to amend its bylaws to require that people paid to talk up stocks acknowledge that fact in their profiles, and failure to do so would be grounds for immediate and permanent expulsion from SI. This would include companies like Westergaard and its employees, as well as Investor Relations personnel from any company. That way they still have the freedom of speech to say anything they want, but their paid alliegence is out there for all to see. Note that merely working for a company like Intel wouldn't require such a disclosure, but working in their IR department would. They've already got ambulance chasers hunting down the location of posters - and posters' families, I might add - by filing frivolous lawsuits and typing up 'subpoenas' which they hand to SI, while SI refuses to comment on its policy regarding their disclosure of its posters and their families. Note that most of this behavior takes place under the covers, i.e., they don't talk about doing it. When one did, the aforementioned Westergaard, they were pilloried in SI, even though the object of their behavior was one of SI's, shall we say, less popular posters. That's because SI members know a sham when the see one, and acted accordingly. They'll do the same, though less publicly, with "ignore" and the touts you worry about will become less effective. This behavior is sometimes repulsive, as when it is used to scare a legitimate poster from saying truths about a company. However, it is equally problematic for a poster, under cover of anonymity, to be able to make false, defamatory remarks about a company. Should the company be denied legal recourse?