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: epicure who wrote (45456)	3/10/2002 2:54:32 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You're clearly very sensitive to tone. "A party made out of it," I mean. A new thread tends to have a festive atmosphere, especially if it's getting a lot of posts. I think nothing unseemly or untoward happened there, myself. The thread's existence is itself traceable to CH's own behavior, so I decline to feel regret or guilt. I tried to imagine what, aside from saying some individuals couldn't be discussed there but not mentioning names, would be an acceptable tone and how it could be arranged, but failed. As for naming who's banned, this is what it says: A small number of persons are pre-banned for previous violations of the above rules. Refrain from commenting on members who have been moderated off this thread. As of now that consists of Christopher Hodgkin and bonnuss_in_austin. If you have a dispute with them, take it to a thread where they can respond. This is only fair. It instructs posters not to discuss those two people. I see no reason why those names shouldn't be removed at this point, though, if they are offensive to anyone. I"ll send a link to this exchange to the moderator and see if he has any objection to simply eliminating the names themselves. No, didn't know CH was banned from many threads. It isn't the case that Poet can ban him from any of hers, though, because her main 'personal' thread is Poet's Corner on IHub and she can't ban him there. She can keep removing his posts, but that's not the same. I'm PMing a link to Laz now. Maybe he'll take my suggestion and remove those names, we'll see.

To: epicure who wrote (45456)	3/10/2002 4:15:43 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

I asked Laz about the situation with the names in the header and he replies in PM (which he mentioned i could post if i wanted): Sunday, March 10, 2002 3:28 PM ET To: E (who wrote) From: Lazarus Long WELL DAMN! I get these nasty PMs from CH complaining about him being discussed on a thread where he cannot respond. The only I see out is that rule. And, while I didn't like listing the names either, how else can such a rule work? You tell people not to talk about people unknown to them? Tell X to remove notoorabout and I'll explain the situation. And where is CH? He's the one who caused his name to appear. Maybe he should explain it. The reference to asking you to remove the notoorabout from him if you want to discuss it with him is that he doesn't post to or about you since you asked him not to. Why didn't you just put him on Ignore, if that's good enough for Poet, btw? Laz also said in another PM that CH had never complained about being named to him. I'm going to suggest that he remove the names and see what happens. If someone starts talking about a banned person, they can be told in PM. But now you can see how the names came to be there: CH didn't want, understandably, to be discussed where he couldn't reply. Having been "discussed" many times where I couldn't reply, I am entirely sympathetic.