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.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (60826)	10/29/2001 12:24:02 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Combjelly, Re: "Not really. If you recall, the last Paul vote resulted in a call to arms on the Intel board. I am guessing that Mani wanted to avoid that again, and that is why his rules for the vote. If it wasn't for that rather blatant attempt to stuff the ballot box by people who don't normally read the group, I doubt if Mani would have taken on this extra burden of work." And who says that the people in the other group aren't stuffing the ballot box, as well? wanna_bmw

To: combjelly who wrote (60826)	10/29/2001 1:50:04 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

combjelly, re: If you recall, the last Paul vote resulted in a call to arms on the Intel board. I am guessing that Mani wanted to avoid that again, and that is why his rules for the vote. If it wasn't for that rather blatant attempt to stuff the ballot box by people who don't normally read the group, I doubt if Mani would have taken on this extra burden of work. First, I read most posts on the Intel thread. There may have been a mention of a vote here, certainly not a call to arms. And if there was a "blatant attempt to stuff the ballot box", it was also a blatant failure, since Paul did get banned. For all we know, there may be 5 people who read the thread and don't post, for every person that does post. The assumption on these threads is that people are posting to share information with other people. This and other threads are for the benefit of the reader, not the poster. The poster already has the information he is contributing. So it seems very unfair to limit the moderation to the posters. All those that measure the benefit from the information posted on the thread should be allowed to vote on if Paul's posts provide value. re: The whole point of the moderated group was the discussion was getting watered down by flame wars and off topic discussions. Engels posts are almost always on topic, more so than almost anyone else that posts here, or on the Intel thread. I think "flame wars" is an exaggeration, when Paul "flames" it is usually aimed at AMD directly, or indirectly through the individual. re: Pretending that Paul is only being singled out because of his pro-Intel views is disengenious(sp?), at best Right. It's his anti-AMD views that really get to you guys. Pretty thin skinned, if you ask me. It's amazing how much he has intimidated people over here, that the next or ignore button isn't good enough. Lifetime ban, that's the way to squelch an opposing view. It says more about the people who vote for it, than it does about Engel. John

To: combjelly who wrote (60826)	10/29/2001 5:36:56 PM
From: Joseph S. Lione	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Combjelly - "If it wasn't for that rather blatant attempt to stuff the ballot box by people who don't normally read the group..." How do you know who normally reads the thread?. I read it, but very rarely post. As an INTC shareholder, I find Yousef's post of no value, so I have him on ignore. You can do the same with paul. Seems simple enough. Joe