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: kash johal who wrote (63212)	11/9/2001 11:29:12 AM
From: Charles Gryba	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

I voted no by PM also, yesterday. I think PE will end up staying which does not bother me since I have him and responses to him on ignore which effectively make him invisible to me. Constantine

To: kash johal who wrote (63212)	11/9/2001 12:34:06 PM
From: tcmay	Respond to of 275872

I did not vote, as Mani's rules did not allow me to vote. I would have voted "No," as I think the proper cure for speech one dislikes is _more_ speech, not bans. And not the constant carping and yapping about how someone should be "reported" to the SI administrators or to the Maniban himself. But calling for a "new vote" and calling for people to cast votes after the rules said the vote was over is sheer nonsense. The essence of fair play is that parties know the rules and advance AND THEN NO CHANGES ARE ALLOWED. This is why contracts are not renegotiated (except by full consent of all parties). This is why changing the rules after the outcome is known is not acceptable. The vote was the vote, period. Personally, I think Paul was wasting his time in this "moderated" forum, where Mani threatened to ban anyone who talked about 911 after his "allowed period," then Mani launched an anti-Israel, pro-Muslim vicious diatribe. (Both Paul and I remember reading this. After a few days, we couldn't find it. I suspect Mani realized how two-faced he had been and deleted it, after the usual "15 minutes" of editing time. I could be wrong.) In my 13 years of actively using the Net, including co-founding a couple of mailing lists, I have seen many examples of this "censorship mentality." Predictably, the moderators spend huge amounts of time "mediating" minor and major disputes, listening to demands that others be banned, and issuing new and ever more baroque rules. And the forums themselves become consumed in threats to "report violations," denunciations of "racism," calls for more bans, and these silly "votes" we have just seen. The Moderated AMD thread is now a cesspool of "narcs" threatening to notify SI supervisors, demands that apologies be given, and calls that the Intelfidels be driven off so that the AMDroids can rule their domain without pesky challenges. Disgusting. --Tim May