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.

SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Welcome New SI Members! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WTMHouston who wrote (9006)	10/7/1999 6:25:00 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32883

Troy, Though I am anti-A@P, it is not the reason that I am anti-vote. In my comments on the "vote" thread, I mentioned that I would not vote because of my stance on being anti-vote. The fact is that the SI community is not an impartial group and the A@P vote is really more of a jury situation rather than an election situation. I know that I wouldn't want A@P on my jury right now and I doubt very seriously that he would want me on his jury. And of course, A@P's fans are also not impartial in this either. Since this is not an impartial vote based on evidence, it is simply a popularity contest. Personally, I think that SI should cancel the vote and reinstate A@P. By putting it up to a vote, they have stated that they have weighed the evidence and it is not so horrible that they wouldn't let him back on. Regardless of the outcome, this vote will only cause more discord in the SI community. Back in the good old days, SI would be concerned about discord in the SI community. But perhaps controversy gets more pageviews and attracts more subscribers. "Welcome to Springer Investor" (this is a comment about SI, not about A@P). JXM

To: WTMHouston who wrote (9006)	10/7/1999 6:29:00 PM
From: bob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32883

<<That said, I see the A@P vote as a pilot program: maybe it works, maybe it does not, maybe it needs to be reformatted, maybe it needs to be scrubbed. But, I like the idea that SI is willing to try something to see if and how well it works.>> I agree with your point if it was started with all new terminations. Are all past terminations going to get the same treatment A@P is getting now? If not then I say it's very unfair and SI's motives are suspect IMO.