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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Poet who wrote (3000)	1/25/2001 9:25:29 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

The clarification of "appropriate" behavior is always interesting. So many people get so emotional, how good it is to have some one as level headed (and as familiar with swear words) as SI Bob to help us understand this quagmire.

To: Poet who wrote (3000)	1/25/2001 9:41:17 AM
From: YlangYlangBreeze	Respond to of 82486

Past SI guidance indicates that it is not only offensive words, but personal attacks and even concepts that violate TOU. You provide an interesting opportunity to study TOU. The post you cite uses both of the two "filthy" words I used in my deleted post. Even if those words are acceptable in the post you mention, I hesitate, perhaps out of naiivete, to conclude that the offense lies in the very mention of an issue which has been discussed at length here in context of Sex Education parameters. I was about to say that that depth of censorship is inconceivable to me, and that there must be some other explanation. Then I realized that it is the prevalence of precisely that kind of bias that limits information in SexEd in schools today.