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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (2871)	3/15/2002 12:44:20 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I asked a simple question. If X was really interested in an apology it would be simple enough to answer. Nothing Bill has posted seems factually inaccurate to me. To me the post she made also strikes me as odd given my prior experience with X. I'm sorry if that is discomforting. Reality often is.

To: Lane3 who wrote (2871)	3/15/2002 12:46:31 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21057

That's at best a misrepresentation, at worst an outright lie. The "very first" thing I posted was NOT my last paragraph, it was this: << I would like to see vulgarity forbidden... >> Really X? Then how would you be able to post things like this? All that stroking on the RWET thread got them so excited they had to cum here. Message 16117007; So is your problem that I posted my opinion that X's recent proclamations were sanctimonious or that I disrupted the phoney baloney lovefest here?

To: Lane3 who wrote (2871)	3/15/2002 12:57:25 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Brava, Karen. (eom)

To: Lane3 who wrote (2871)	3/15/2002 3:03:29 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

X provides a unique perspective, which I think adds to the color and texture of our discussions. I'd like to see her participate. I would hope that you and Bill would allow that. Just re-read this. I'm not the moderator of this thread nor is Bill. You should ask Laz what it is he would allow. X is free to post here or not to if that is what she desires. JLA

To: Lane3 who wrote (2871)	3/15/2002 3:34:35 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

You have a suggestion for a change to the rules or a new one? Remember, both sides are allowed here. The intent is not to establish a dictatorship. And rules have to be pretty objective so that both sides can largely agree as to whether they were violated. I think that makes a rule incorporating what you desire pretty difficult to formulate. Important changes to rules generally get passed around among several of us and they are both left and right. Bias towards one side or the other gets rubbed off in the process. Anything you suggest has to withstand that. I have found that this process works rather well. Any point I may miss will very likely be spotted by someone else. I don't think a "No nastiness" rule is practical. That's much too subjective a call. And, as moderator, may I point out that the person you speak of is not banned?

To: Lane3 who wrote (2871)	3/19/2002 1:37:38 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

I've asked you this before: What would you have me do? I'm afraid I'm going to have to break that quite possibly nonexistent notoorabout with regard to X, but I see no way of avoiding it. I also feel that when I am acting in moderator capacity (and that covers now), there are times when I can and should. You've said I was being unfair to X. I've asked several times how I was being unfair. I don't post to her and until now I haven't discussed her. She's not banned. So what is it I am doing? I've never received an answer. I usually stay out of these things, but I thought we were trying to establish a civil place here. "Civil" is in the eyes of the beholder. Even more so than what is vulgar and what is not. The original intent in setting up this thread was that it should be fair to both sides. There were some rules established to prevent recurrence of the behaviour that drove the old BB thread into chaos. I'm not particularly interested in judging "civil". That's far more subjecive than I ever intended. It could be done. A board of a couple of liberals and a couple of conservatives could decide the matter. 3/4 vote needed to ban. But let me point out something to you: Based on past history, I would be surprised if X were not among the first banned under such a setup. I am open to suggestions.