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 (45363)	3/8/2002 1:10:38 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I agree it's a closer call. But if you content that posting about ideas a person has put into the public arena for discussion is posting about the person, you're in a slippery slope. I view posting "about" a person as one of seveal things. Posting with direct attribution to them, or in direct response to them. Posting any personal information, even if it has already been disclosed publicly. In the case of the hypothetical, if I posted "I disagree with Poet; I think ... " that would clearly be posting about her. But just posting "I don't think that..." is, IMO, not posting about her, but just about ideas that she has chosen to put into the public marketplace of ideas. Once we say that posting about ideas is posting about a person, the lines get awfully fuzzy. JC Dithers sidestepped this by leaving it up to the court of public opinion, which I think is maybe the best way, at least for starters, and see how it goes. I'm not sure any of this is going to be an actual problem. I just don't want to set anybody up for failure or ongoing controversy about whether somebody is or isn't complying with an agreement.

To: Neocon who wrote (45363)	3/8/2002 1:25:46 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Let's take the hypothetical a step further. Suppose Neo chimes in and says "Poet, I agree with you totally." Now, I suppose I say: "I think nuking the Middle East is extreme." Is that now responding to Poet, or to Neo, or to both? Suppose I say "Neo, I disagree with you. Nuking the Middle East is extreme." Since your post simply referred to Poet's, is my post to you also referring to Poet? You can see the permutations and combinations here, where reasonable minds can differ. What I am trying to avoid is having to examine every post I might want to make on an issue that Poet has participated in and have to think each post through to see whether it does or doesn't pass muster--and pass muster by several people with differing opinions. That's not an environment that interests me, and I don't think is one that would appeal to many people. (And, if the ultimate deal is reciprocal with JLA, let's keep in mind that he's constrained by the same limits on his posts about subjects I'm posting on. How long do you think he will be able to keep it up? If Poet, JLA, and I are all posting on a thread and all of have to worry about whether anything we say can be traced too closely to a post of one of the others, things are going to be mighty weird. And the probability of somebody complaining that the "deal" was violated becomes virtually inevitable.)