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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (44402)	2/20/2002 4:26:29 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I'm not trying to "beat" anybody or "win" anything. I think this is an issue which has gotten way out of hand. Poet feels uncomfortable. CH feels uncomfortable. It has to stop. I'd like to see them both continue posts. And I seriously doubt that if Poet disappears that the sniping would stop....If necessary, both parties could acknowledge that their agreement can be construed as nothing other than a desire to put this matter to rest.... Time to end it. JLA

To: one_less who wrote (44402)	2/20/2002 5:04:51 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

That's a reasonable post reasonably put. A nice change for the recent discourse here. If you have any contention as to why the "deal" would not be on everyone's best behalf, I would like to see it spelled out. Why is it in my best interests to make any "deal" at all? A deal implies benefits to both sides. Where is there any benefit to me in agreeing to anything? I don't see it. Nobody else is being restricted by it. c.horn isn't being restricted from posting things so obviously over the edge that they get deleted (none of my posts on this issue have had to be deleted.) The snipers will never be satisfied. Appeasement has long been recognized as an ultimately destructive strategy. If I did make any kind of agreement, the sniping wouldn't stop, it would just move to issues of whethe the agreement was violated if, say, I respond to the content of an article which Poet posts. As far as I'm concerned, the TOU are there, they exist, and they are sufficient. If anybody doesn't want to read anything I post, they are free not to. If anybody doesn't even want to see anything I have posted, they have the ignore button. Now, I invite you, but not anybody else since you're the only one who seems to care about the substantive issues here, to tell me why that isn't a perfectly reasonable position to take? I don't see any reason why I shouldn't just go on posting under the TOU and not impose any other restrictions on myself or any other poster.