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 : Questions and Answers with SI Admin (s) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Bob who wrote (225)	5/27/2000 7:02:00 PM
From: ISOMAN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4895

I was suspended twice for being a bonehead. I got over it... Of course, I actually got some air in my lungs, and...went for a walk, when I got the 5 day suspention.. I think I got the first one a one dayer..for calling someone a whiney sucky baby.. and the second , for 5 days, was because I called an obvious tout a child molester... Ironic thing, is, he had actually been accused of doing just that...(but I didn't know it at the time I was just being a goof) ...must be that ISO PSI... Anyway Bob, I posted 400 messages last month and I think that means you owe me $200 ok.

To: SI Bob who wrote (225)	5/28/2000 5:51:00 PM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 4895

Dear Bob, Thanks for your response. You answered some of my questions. I know that a job such as yours must, at times, be frustrating (and rewarding). It wasn't my intention to make any accusations, only to find out some facts. Please don't take it in any other way. I realize we can all get a bit sensitive at times. There have been accusations. I did not specifically post them as I don't wish to post anything unless I have personal verification. I merely wanted to know your reactions and whether you would clearly state that you had no connection with the private site. I felt this would give you an opportunity to clearly state this. In any event, here is one post made on RB. There are others. ragingbull.com Of course, a posting does not make anything true and nobody of substance would believe that. That's why I hesitate to even post a link. I just wanted to get a clear take on this, as well as the clear policy on personal attacks and inappropriate language. I don't think anyone could read SI and not be aware that there are really vicious personal attacks, often laced with profanities. Sometimes the profanities and attacks are directed to companies and principles. There are patterns that are followed by several posters whose names are well-known to all who frequent the boards. I'm not offended by any of this. Profanity, vulgarity, personal attacks don't scare me. However, I do believe there are many on here who are turned off or even intimidated at times. I just want to know the rules and whether the stated rules are really the ones that are consistently followed. For example, there was a very hostile and public threat on the ECNC thread about revealing someone's identity and what would happen to that person. When the poster clearly was wrong, he attempted to apologize and back track. To me, it was a clear TOU violation. The person to whom it was written seemed to be intimidated. This type of thing should not happen on these boards. It was immaterial to the quality, or lack thereof, of ECNC (which I don't own or have any knowledge of other than what I have read on their board. Hopefully this will discourage some posts telling how ECNC deserved what it got.) I'm not trying to get into a clever debate here, just looking for some clear answers to questions that are often asked. That's what this thread if for, I take it. Thanks again, RR

To: SI Bob who wrote (225)	5/29/2000 12:51:00 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 4895

I am really disappointed to see this from you, Bob: Too civil would be breath-takingly boring. It's possible to have heated exchanges within the confines of this site's rules of engagement. If the exchange is boring, one or both sides may not be digging well enough for relevant facts or just holding them back. It's incredibly ironic that you are green-lighting more heated exchanges which almost always dilute the "stock to noise" ratio on threads. How often are you called in to police a thread where traders and investors are calmly discussing the merits of a stock? You aren't. You get called in for the personal attacks, profanity and schoolyard behavior that detract from an interesting stock discussion but generate a lot of page views. Run a search on the 50% Gains thread not long ago for our discussion on ALSC. Tell me that a civil discussion is less useful than the ECNC circus, TERN, etc. Just wanted to register my public disagreement with encouraging Yahoo- and RB-like behavior on SI. Some of us view SI as a refuge from all that crap. Thanks for your attention.

To: SI Bob who wrote (225)	5/29/2000 8:02:00 PM
From: levy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4895

SI Bob, I remember a while back that Silicon Investor was advertising for a so called "Evangelist" position. That job is no longer listed and I was wondering if if was filled or if it was decided to drop that idea. I forget exactly what the job description was, but if I am not mistaken, I believe the idea was to have that individual post on various threads, which in turn might indirectly promote Silicon Investor. Am I correct about this or mistaken? If true it would give some credence to the rumor of getting paid to post.