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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (13404)	12/9/2001 12:32:04 PM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 281500

SI discussions are like a maze. If you come across a "dead end" your are supposed to go and find another solution. I'm surprised how many can only just continue to bash there heads on the wall. Ummm'... I was going to say something, can't though. -g-

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (13404)	12/9/2001 1:50:52 PM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 281500

When a new person comes to the neighborhood, good people extend a greeting. If the people there are good they go out of their way to extend a helping hand. except when the new person enters the neighborhood with both guns blazing in an attempt to kill everyone off....in this case those same good people will shoot the new guy dead in his tracks.

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (13404)	12/9/2001 3:00:20 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 281500

Are you talking from the historical background of US civil rights?? <When a new person comes to the neighborhood, good people extend a greeting> Ilmarinen Btw, who was this women who in the 30s said that as long as local neighborhood education is based on local property taxes, it will stay a dilemma?? Did she also say something about the propaganda of news funded by advertisement??

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (13404)	12/9/2001 3:43:27 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Per the request of my good friend Michael D. Cummings. I post this message. From: Michael D. Cummings To: The Thread. Dear thread...I have been banned from posting here. Therefore, please desist in discussing the issue of my banning and the reasons behind it, since I've been censored from commenting in return, it's rude and of poor taste. Some posters have commented that "I didn't follow the rules". The truth is, I repeatedly asked for what rule(s) I was violating, and received no reply in return. I did this repeatedly in PM and openly on the thread. If anyone would like to show me evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it. As a matter of fact, Win Smith a regular poster here, actually said just prior to my banishment, that my comments were "on topic". Someone recently commented that this thread has a collegiate atmosphere, and some are simply not up to the challenge (or words to that effect). Others have agreed with him. Including JohnM, who I originally posted a disagreement with. I would partially agree. It has intelligent posters, who put a lot of effort into posting interesting substantial ideas. This was the main reasons I was drawn to post here to begin with. However, it also suffers from what many college classrooms suffer from. The silencing of politically in-correct speech. Truly intelligent discourse, needs a free and open place of dissent in order to understand all sides of an issue. My example of banishment, clearly proves this censored bias exists here. During my very short time here, I've noticed repeatedly that JohnM is allowed free reign to discuss politics, slam John Ashcroft, Bush and others, while the thread moderator says nothing publicly in return. Bush, and Ashcroft, are fair game, because they represent a certain political ideology we find repellent. This kind of double-standard clandestine bias is the hallmark of what happens on campuses and universities under the guise of politically correct speech. Foreign affairs classrooms across America are run by similar professors who only allow one point of view to come across. Since JohnM's point of view, aligns with the thread moderators, his speech is fine. Since mine contradicts the thread moderators, kick me out of class. Don't want to hear it. Not useful. Go away.... Conservative points of view have no place when discussing foreign affairs. We only recognize the pure thinkers of acedemia among us. Therefore, since JohnM is a college professor, it's not surprising to see him so comfortable posting in this censored atmosphere of political correctness. Al Hunt articles are fine because Al Hunt is described as a "moderate", and talk about the politics of the issue surrounding Al Hunt's article is fine, as long as it's in agreement with his underlying positions. While on the other hand, articles by Mona Charon, Rush Limbaugh or Pat Buchannan are considered "breaking the rules" (even though they were right on topic), because well...(they are conservatives) and we know they cannot think very well. You see the same sort of thing in the mainstream news organizations who don't give a second thought toward hiring Stephanopolis as a political commentator to talk about foreign affairs (because he's balanced), but would never hire an equivalent campaign manager from the Bush or Reagan team because of his/her unbalanced ideas. I actually wouldn't mind the bias if the moderator was up front and honest about it. Clearly he wasn't toward me, and my integrity as well as my character has been impued in the process of banishment. I don't hide behind aliases, this is my real name, which has meaning to me. And my name and reputation have been derided for no real reason at all. My banishment was not only unfair given your thread rules. It was unjust given that I was responding to JohnM who brought the subject up to begin with, and opened up the political venue can-of-worms. But the thread and moderator have now gone even further, by first banning me, and now allowing conversations regarding my banning to take place, when they know full well I've been rendered speechless. This is simple rudeness. And if anyone were in my shoes, I believe they would feel the same way. One last thing before I sign off, I ask everyone who agrees with my banning to think about this. I've been posting on SI for nearly 6 years, thousands upon thousands of posts, and never once have been suspended, or banned from a thread. Does that say something about the way Ken applied his rules of posting? Does it say he was clear regarding why I was banned, and allowed me the decency to correct whatever I was doing which offended him? Or, would you all rather believe I have just now gone off the deep end and changed the way I posted into some rude and obnoxious style, without consideration to the posting requirements of the thread? Michael

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (13404)	12/9/2001 5:19:58 PM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

I find private messages that discuss another to be petty and demeaning. I'm confused. Do you refer to those who PMed you about the private rules? Or to Michael's PMs that you post here? The public rules are apparent via the thread header: Subject 51724 Message 16607278 As to the suggestion that anyone gets a free pass (when more than a few 'regulars' have drawn warnings or temporary suspensions), I've not seen much evidence of favoritism, though a provocative stranger might be given less leash than a known quantity who respects a PM to back off a little, which seems pretty normal (speaking as one who has moderated a thread before). The notion that censorship occurs on the basis of political orientation of quoted columnists is absurd, though. There have been discussions in here of what are reputable sources, which ones need to be taken with a grain of salt, etc. Michael mentioned Charen, Limbaugh & Robertson. I should think that most folks recognize that Charen is a legit columnist (even though, as I noted previously, my impression over time is that she parrots others and rarely proposes an original thought). Robertson, because of his fundamentalist religious background, and his repeated fringe candidacies, hardly qualifies as a source of info, an expert on FA, and certainly is not construed as a legit columnist by anyone serious (except by those who craft FA via divine revelation). And Limbaugh is a caricaturist or an entertainer, possibly paralleled on the left by Chomsky, without the weight of research that Chomsky brings to the table. Like any thread, this has granted the leeway to stray off-topic, to quote Bugs Bunny or whoever, to zing or be zinged. Able moderation means hard & fast rules can't be rigidly applied (except, perhaps, for personal attacks), but when the topic strays too far or too long, some reining in must be done. Michael's mention of his long clean record as an SI poster seems more appropriate for a probation hearing. It's kinda irrelevant, if he's crossed the line with the moderator. The judgment of others here is equally irrelevant, including my comments herein. And one of the most difficult situations for a moderator is dealing with critics. Should one cry foul because a critic is continually off-topic and risk looking like they don't tolerate criticism? Or should they let the thread disintegrate away from anything related to FA? I'm not so much defending Ken here, as trying to respond in a neighborly way. And I hafta admit, that your posts have been long on critiques and engineering and short on the FA. If that's intended to put the moderator into a lose/lose situation, I can't judge. But continuing along such a path certainly can be a distraction to the thread. It sure seems more appropriately resolved privately. But that's jmo.