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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (138329)	4/14/2001 11:19:44 AM
From: richard surckla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Amy J... TLC has Scumbria's number. Scumbria would try to start a fight in an empty house. His name calling abuse can be found wherever he posts. Just go back and follow him around where he has posted and see for yourself. He drives the posters nuts on SI Rambus where he searches thousands of old posts and lists them. I don't know if he has done that here, but he he does it on SI Rambus just to irritate people. Here is just one example of many... Message 15600175 I say "good riddance"

To: Amy J who wrote (138329)	4/14/2001 12:06:49 PM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 769667

Hello Amy! Nice to see you dropping by the Bush patch. :) My 2 cents regarding Scumbria.... I also believe he shouldn't have been banned. However, I can understand why people have been irritated to that point. We don't have to agree, but these incessant one liners, intended simply to crap on someones personalities were never ending from him here. A few times he engaged me in an argument which went beyond one or two lines, but it was pretty much the exception. I much prefer to argue with people like American Spirit, who at least take the time to write something beyond one or two lines. When you post literally hundreds of one liners a day, the thread takes on that useless bantering flavor. On the Intel thread, he's much more in his element and can articulate the engineering reasons why he takes a certain position. But in the world of politics, his lack of depth regarding the subject, or his unwillingness to post them, prevented anything beyond the one line attack posting style. There's a reason we have a rule on the number of posts on SI in a day. And I think it's a reasonable one. Spamming one-liners destroys the flavor of SI, and turns it into nothing more than a Yahoo board. But this could just be a personal taste thing with me. I enjoy reading longer posts, and believe we can gain a better understanding of someones position when they go through that trouble. I hope I made myself clear. A warning should have been all SI needed to do. Banning someone should be a last resort after three warnings. (you know, the three strikes and you're out thing) :) The one thing that disturbs me about his being banned, is that according to emails I've received from Scumbria, SI hasn't given him a reason why he was banned. That's simply wrong! The least SI should do is give a detailed reason why a person has been banned. As a matter of fact, I would appreciate it if SI Jeff gave this entire thread that reason (if this thread is the reason why he was banned). In that way, we would all gain a better understanding of the TOU and how they are currently being applied. Because, we all know, it's not strictly enforced IAW the terms. Otherwise, we might all get the boot! :) Lastly, I've always believed SI should be more lenient regarding thread behavior on the political coffee shop threads, then the stock threads. After all, how many people can discuss politics or religion, even with their own family, without getting a bit hot under the collar at times? Take Care, Mike

To: Amy J who wrote (138329)	4/14/2001 1:35:24 PM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

I don't flame people very often. I only do it when I am attacked or provoked more than once. This site used to be full of people that could discuss things even though they didn't agree. After all, everyone is different, so the chances of everyone thinking the same are about zero. Shortly after the presidential election, the overall tone seemed to change, and the number of vitriolic posts and nasty personal attacks started climbing. It's unfortunate, and I wish this site had a stricter policy on personal attacks and name calling. The post he got suspended for (if indeed he was suspended) has been deleted. It was addressed to me, and contained a personal attack and a rather tasteless reference to sodomy. I appreciate your note. Thanks, and best of luck to you.

To: Amy J who wrote (138329)	4/14/2001 5:03:47 PM
From: zonkie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

I think you are right about Scumbria and his expulsion. It was only because the people who were arguing with him couldn't hold their own. Well maybe not one of those who were arguing with him, maybe it was more of a bystander. Censorship is alive and well on the Republican side of the argument here. We have seen it before. It won't surprize me if we see it again. As far as the question of whether Scumbria said anything that could have gotten him expelled, I'm sure he did. I'm just as sure that I and 90% of the other posters here have also said such things. Do you think our self appointed censor has ever broke those rules? Or reported a Republican for breaking any rules. I'll bet not but i'll also bet he/she would be an outspoken supporter of the first amendment. I have never reported anyone on this thread for anything. If I ever did I would be man enough to come on the thread and tell people it was me and why I did it.