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: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (3303)	1/25/2001 11:19:24 PM
From: YlangYlangBreeze	Respond to of 82486

I hate hate hate being the peace keeper it is not in my nature. I am trying to reach out. Conciliation tastes remarkably like, o never mind. Let's see how conciliatory, or compassionate, is the other side Now, where I come from you say "k, let's take it outside". Exactamento! This is outside, we discussed that as a thread name, even. I am willing to try for letting Adminstration deal with them, and hope that they are sincere. Atta girl! Thank you.

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (3303)	1/25/2001 11:40:48 PM
From: SI Bob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

And Bob (are you listening?) Yes, I am. I've added two bookmarks today. Okay, here's the deal: YYB, I don't think you need to go through all the effort you're volunteering, but it is sincerely appreciated. All I will do is keep these threads bookmarked for a while and keep up with all the posts until I feel confident the threads continue without profanity, personal attacks, or anything that can be construed as threatening. As far as I'm concerned, it's a clean slate. Which is just as well, since it'd be impossible to determine who threw the first sideways glance that started it all. That's all I care about. There's nothing wrong with arguing, even if it's a heated argument. In this venue, though, personal attacks and vulgarity shouldn't become substitutes for intelligent discourse. Anyone, before you hit the "Submit" button on the latest passionately scathing missive you've fired off, ask yourself "Am I attacking/refuting this person's opinions or am I attacking the person him/herself?". If it's the latter, go back and edit. Sitting on that side of the screen, it's easy to say "We're all adults and can handle calling each other idiots and anyone who doesn't want to see it doesn't have to read it.", but as happens time and time again, mild personal attacks lead to increasingly stronger personal attacks, and eventually to nothing but attacks. And worse. And I get treated to "He/she/they started it" sung in two different keys. One more thing: I generally do not like to bookmark a thread or a person and read everything that's written. Not only would it be impossible to do it for the whole site, it smacks too much of "Big Brother". I don't need to be looking over any shoulders. For this reason, it is important that instead of responding to a serious personal attack with another, it be reported to me instead. With a link. There's a de facto statute of limitations and if you assume I've already seen the post or that someone else has reported it, you could be wrong. Regards, SI Admin (Bob)

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (3303)	1/26/2001 12:39:47 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Bob are you listening" in a post not to Bob makes the same assumption that has caused a lot of trouble imo. That Bob is omniscient. He isn't. IMHO: If you want equal action on violations of the TOU, report them immediately, don't muddy the issue by violating the TOU yourself, state how you think the TOU were violated. Don't bring stuff up that happened in the background of a violation the other side reported. Of course you can use it as mitigation in arguing that the suspension, or whatever, should be brief ! But to get all shirty because SI Bob didn't descend from heaven and with a booming voice expel somebody that wasn't reported when the violation occurred...? I haven't seen any proof whatever that Bob applies the TOU unfairly. I've seen complaints that he refuses to be an archeologist. If I were he, I'd make a rule that if a violation isn't reported within a certain time period, hours (certainly if the victim has posted within it), well, forget reporting it. Okay as background, maybe. In asking for mercy for a later violation of one's own. Context. IMO if you can't present your complaints in a timely and coherent manner, then suck it up and take your medicine. The side that is the creepiest and most babyish wins the Tattle Tale war. That's just the way it is, imho, and it's not Bob's doing. The strategically cleverer one wins the Get Your Enemy Suspended war. Loses the moral one, identifies him/herself as an a****e, wins the suspension-contest. Your characterization and evaluation of the respective violations of you and GZ isn't accurate, imo. GZ's was more disturbing to me, it's true. In fact, I thought yours was completely joking until I read what you wrote here tonight! Now I'm not sure at all. But I am saying, even though we're friends, that I think your description of what happened is inaccurate and unfair, and that by making the shotgun remark you gave somebody an opening and they took it, and so Bob did exactly what he had to.* And look how fast you're back. I"d like to see everybody who's saying that SI Bob is being so unfair be sentenced to being referee for 90 days. It would be priceless, especially if we were privy to the PM's the currently indignant referees would have to deal with. I hope we're still friends, chooseanother, even though I'm disagreeing with your "take" on things. (I'm only up to this post of yours on the thread. Maybe all this is moot by now....) Edit: I see Bob is reading the thread, and posting: Message 15249379