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.

Pastimes : SI vs. iHub - Battle of the Boards Part 2 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Riley who wrote (2490)	5/23/2001 11:43:55 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Respond to of 5315

Tim Luke, as well as MensaWannabe, was suspended for re-posting a post made by me here last week, for which my posting privileges here at SI were likewise suspended without warning. This action on the part of SI raises some serious questions. I have spoken with Tim many times in the past few weeks, and he will be permitted to post again here shortly, as I understand. I have not yet done so but tonight I would like to take this opportunity to thank, both on a personal and professional level, what Tim Luke did in re-posting my words here, words that were censored by this site for reasons I am unable to find either fair or reasonable. Responses from SI on this subject I have found to be completely unacceptable. Without naming the author, I would like to publish one of them here: <<Hello, I deleted one post as it was a strong personal attack on an SI member. I do not edit posts. I also take into account the fact that you posted many of the same posts back in November. Many of these were attacking as well. Negative commenatary is welcome of course. But when it becomes protracted and extreme it becomes a TOU violation. While I allowed much commentary on this particular member over the last 3 months. You simply need to look at the iHub/SI thread to see how much commentary was allowed. However, the posts of late from a few members have become attacking rather than discorsive. Your post fitted into a pattern of harassment of this member. I make TOU decisions based on what I see in the threads. We have no arrangement with any of the members in question. Thank you for contacting our customer service group. Please let us know if there is anything we can do to help you in the future. >> *You simply need to look at the iHub/SI thread to see how much commentary was allowed.* In my eyes, that statement is an important one. It delineates what I find a troubling, if not quite arrogant and self-important belief, borne by some quarters it seems, that freedom of speech is something that may be "allowed," that speaking according to one's conscience is somehow to now be defined as a luxury item. I always believed what made our nation very special in world history was the cherished and hard-won attitude that freedom of speech was no luxury whatsoever, but rather a God-given, inalienable right of all members of the human race, in any and all circumstance - and most especially during times of controversy and discord. (That misspelling, "discorsive," I found quite a curious error.) Forgive those of us who are so naive as to continue to believe that we may demand this right today, without interference. Fortunately, there are those among us - rather many it seems these days - who share the same beliefs. I am very glad to know each and every one of them here. Sincerely, Olivier L. F. Asser