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 (1134)	7/31/1999 11:47:00 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2340

<< the imposition of an ignore button is not being threatened at this time >> I would NOT cruise SI WITHOUT an Ignore feature. Great that I have one. - Eric -

To: marcos who wrote (1134)	8/1/1999 7:51:00 PM
From: John Biddle	Respond to of 2340

In reference to my previously saying: "...but not a single argument against the addition of an "ignore"..." You said: Likely because only those wanting one post there, since the imposition of an ignore button is not being threatened at this time. Should it be, reaction will arise. Bet on it. I don't buy your deduction here. You're claiming that when I (along with many others, remember there's a whole thread on this subject) ask for an ignore feature, that opponents to the idea are remaining silent because they don't feel threatened. But that if they did feel threatened they'd post large numbers of posts against it. But you used this argument, flawed though I think it is, as an answer to the fact that I thought there were no good arguments against an "ignore" button. There certainly have been many arguments against adding "ignore" but you think the good ones are being held back because the opposition doesn't feel threatened. This line of reasoning is silly and beneath your normal standards. I apologize for unclear wording - in no way did I mean to express or imply that you use these threads to push non-reporting garbage. Graciously accepted. It's just that the majority of calls for an ignore button that i have heard have been from touts of non-reporting bulletin board paper. You may not share the leisure time activity of following the interaction between the Chickerati FBNers and the non-reporting carp pusher contingent, but i do from time to time and i assure you it is fascinating. The touts would love an ignore button. I can't dispute what you have seen on these boards, I don't go there. However, I do get around on SI and have read here, in the "ignore thread" and in a number of other locations people arguing for and against "ignore". Not once have I seen a tout, thread moron, or an ignoran booster railing against "ignore". I think the reason is it just isn't going to help them. Look, suppose the touts gang up on a negative poster and encourage everyone to "ignore this short pig who's ruining our thread". Who will do it? Will people who came to SI for insight and information ignore people because someone tells them to? Really? In any case, an ignore button is contrary to the original vision of the Dryers, that of an open marketplace of ideas and information and analysis. I think we should pay the price of wading through the TWOTs to achieve that freedom, as it is a thing of great value. Well we agree at least on the existence of the TWOTs. I fail, however, to understand how plodding through what we agree is crap (though maybe not on which posts <g>) improves your use of SI. I believes it detracts because for every minute you spend reading crap that's a minute not available for reading something else, something which could be useful, intelligent, insightful, intriguing, funny, etc., i.e., something with much more value than the acknowledged crap. Nowhere do I advocate the stifling of anyone. I readily admit that what I find to be worthless drivel someone else may find valuable, and vice versa. I don't want to staunch the free flow of ideas, I wouldn't presume to make the value decision for other people even if I could. We all make these decisions every day. You determine the people you hang around with, the books, magazines & newspaper you read, the places you go, the way you spend your time, etc. based on your view of value, not mine or anyone else's. How would you feel if you had to read every story in the newspaper before you were allowed to move on to the next days edition. Suppose you had to visit New York before you were allowed to go back to San Francisco again. Silly you say? But the people in New York deserve a chance to wow you with their fair city don't they? The suits are filed in actual law courts, not 'under the covers' ... though there certainly are tout intimidation efforts taking place covertly. Filing a suit costs maybe a hundred, hundred and fifty dollars, and a little lawyer's time - and it gives the touts the right, by some accounts, to have their lawyer type up a 'subpoena' to hand to SI to request posters' identity and location. What I was referring to when I said "under the covers" was hiring a private investigator to research identity of anonymous posters rather than do so out in the open in a public forum. Clearly you are right that filing a suit is a public matter. ? and bingo - they threaten your family. I do not think that the law should protect anonymity when a crime is alleged. Learning one's identity does not in and of itself constitute a threat or even bullying behavior. The claimant surely must take some other action to be seen as harassing, right? I'm not trying to defend people who may indeed be doing what you are worried about, but if they only take legal actions, then I'm afraid I don't have a problem with it. It is not against the law in this country to say negative things against a company, so long as they are either true or opinions rather than facts. I'm not sure how much we really disagree much here, but am sure this is probably not the right place for this discussion. Should SI not reveal to a poster whether or not they have succumbed to a legal ruse and placed that poster's family at risk without giving that poster all possible warning? I have no problem with SI informing a member that they (SI) has had to reveal that person's true identity under a subpoena. I actually think it is a very good idea.