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: Neocon who wrote (45273)	3/7/2002 6:16:10 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

As infinitely interesting as all of this is, I have to tend to hearth and home. Later......

To: Neocon who wrote (45273)	3/7/2002 6:36:01 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Well, not exactly that. I would be happy to resolve the issue. But I'm not willing to sell my soul to do so. The issue isn't posting to or about Poet. I have agreed over and over again not to post to or about Poet, even though I see no reason why I shouldn't. I don't think Poet has any rational basis to be afraid of me, and I don't think an objective evaluator would find anything here to support her paranoia. I happen to agree in principle with Michael and others that SI is and should be an open forum within the TOU, and that any posting that meets the requirements of the TOU should be permitted. But be that as it may, for some time I have voluntarily chosen not post to or about her, have not done for some time (other than in discussing this issue, where it is unavoidable), and have no expectation of doing so in future. But that's not all it's about. The demands go beyond that. And it's the beyond that is the issue. For example, limits on my entering into certain discussions where Poet has chosen to be an active participant. Those, IMO, are unreasonable prior restraints, and I'm not prepared to agree in advance to allow Poet's participation in a topic to be the determinant of whether I am allowed to post meaningfully on that topic. Another issue is who would interpret the scope of the beyond. "To or about" is relatively easy to interpret. The beyond is not. That was the issue that I went to the mat with Jeff about, and won. I had not posted to or about Poet, but had posted about an issue Poet had posted about, writing to another person but quoting a few words from a post Poet had made on the issue, and that was enough for Jeff. I wasn't willing to live here permanently with the principle that Poet's participation in discussing an issue could prohibit me from discussing the same issue, and Jeff's bosses agreed with me. But who would interpret whether a given post is a violation of the beyond part of an agreement? And on what principles? Those are the main issues at this point, at least as I see them.