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.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (36997)	8/25/2000 10:22:00 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Cary, While your idea is indeed a novel one, I don't believe many posters would go for the idea of arguing a viewpoint contrary to theirs, especially if it is one they fiercely believe in. We come to believe(and know) what we do through many years of education and experiece. Your proposal would obviate all of that. Additionally, I do not come to SI to play a part, so to speak. I log on when I can and let my beliefs(and feelings) flow, sometimes only for a minute or two a day, although that is rare. I of course cannot speak for the thread only myself, but I think it is in everyone's best interests if they bring their opinions to the table, misguided as they may be. I name myself as among the most misguided:-) Cary, FWIW, I admire you in that you always attempt to make this a better forum to visit. Although I may not always agree with you, you have made the forums you participate in better for your being there. Regards, Brian

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (36997)	8/25/2000 10:38:15 PM
From: Gottfried	Respond to of 70976

Cary, re >establishing "formal" debates on relevant subjects< If you can find willing participants and the topics are AMAT/semi equip/FA and TA related, fine. I doubt you can keep control, though. Gottfried

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (36997)	8/26/2000 12:58:48 AM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

RE: Formal debates and parliamentary procedure.... I seem to recall participants in those endeavors often spend far more time debating what is acceptable procedure than actually saying anything of merit! 8) I like the present system where we just try to self-police and make allowances for humans to go overboard now and then. I respect even more those that can come back later and apologize when they feel they have gone over a line. Actually, perhaps that is what you are saying just I don't think we need "formal" rules. Perhaps an "understanding" of how much is acceptable and a way to back down or end it without having to resort to the SI Police or name calling? My 2¢

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (36997)	8/26/2000 9:53:01 AM
From: James Calladine	Respond to of 70976

FORMAL DEBATES: Cary, it's a good idea, but difficult to implement, without a moderator and real ground rules being observed. I would suggest that we instead feel free to advance any viewpoint around AMAT or associated subjects,providing: -- NO abusive, dismissing comments to other posters -- OCCASIONAL off-topic comments so marked -- off topic debates carried on as personal messages, not here. With such simple rules this can be very productive for all of us. Without some such observances, it is just a zoo (except that the zoo animals do not act so badly). Best wishes, Jim

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (36997)	8/26/2000 11:49:29 AM
From: rsie	Respond to of 70976

you have just been "peoplemarked"......I agree with your comments, you are breath of fresh air....a very rational thought...I have also bookmarked your response....I will use it many times in the future....thanks, Rich

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (36997)	8/26/2000 4:40:55 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 70976

Cary, Thanks for the try. This got way out of hand yesterday and today. I regret that I was involved in this mess. Sorry.

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (36997)	8/26/2000 6:21:51 PM
From: Ian@SI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Cary, Permit me to debate you on the subject of the AMAT DEBATE Thread. ;^) 1. It seems to me that the object of a debate is to win. ... whether or not one actually believes in the point of view being argued. 2. The object of investing is to make money. ... at least that's my object. Greedy little person that I am. 3. I believe that I can make most money by synthesizing the pros and cons of any specific investment idea with a view to best judging when and to what degree the market is wrong. How a debate would permit me to do a better job of determining when the market has mispriced something escapes me. FWIW, Ian.