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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (5547)	3/29/2002 7:47:31 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Ban Land, he's a pervert.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (5547)	3/29/2002 8:12:32 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21057

Well, which post would be the one for which he was banned? What would the reason be? That he's a lying creep? A nutcase? A zealot? A fool? He is those, but I don't see those as banning violations. If everyone is being driven crazy by his silly ravings, I guess that's reason enough for a ban, but I won't vote for it if I'm not being driven crazy; at least not without some reason being given. HOWEVER: I would like to discuss a change of the current thread header (without discussing any banned person.) I propose, and would like to know if there are seconds to this proposal, and thirds, etc., that at this point, the header be changed to read simply: <<A political free-for-all with a few rules: Arguments, logic (nods to Steven Rogers and Neocon), reason (nods to kholt), articles, bombast, are permitted. Even the name calling that is such a trademark of the unmoderated threads. "Demolib pinhead" is specifically allowed. "Parafascist pinhead" for the use of those on the left. Both sides of the aisle, the center (is there such a thing?) and the unclassifiable are all welcome. Home grounds for liberals: The Left Wing Porch Subject 50362 Home grounds for conservatives: Right Wing Extremist Thread Subject 50545 The rules of engagement: It is not the intent of the moderator to favor or discriminate against anyone because of their POLITICAL leanings. However, certain objectionable behaviors will result in banning after discussion on the thread, if the moderator so decides. I may not be able to say what those behaviors are, but I'll know them when I see them.>>

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (5547)	3/29/2002 8:45:16 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

It would appear to me that the only grounds for banning Land would be ... what he thinks. I'm not big on that. I suppose one could say that about Ervile(?) too, although that is a more difficult one for me, since his postings seem to approach the line of true hate speech. (The few I have read, anyway). All in all, I don't feel good about thought-policing. I do feel good that you are the Moderator and not me. ;-)

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (5547)	3/29/2002 9:27:21 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I haven't see any reason to do so yet. What has he done here that has violated the rules of the thread. Tim

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (5547)	3/30/2002 9:46:56 AM
From: Kid Rock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

don't ban him - yet

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (5547)	3/30/2002 11:13:59 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 21057

Well, that was an interesting 4,387 posts. I had to make two pots of coffee to get through it- OK--I vote no banning. If one reads only CL's posts, they are actually fairly benign (given the posts TO him), if one doesn't mind religious fanaticism, which of course, we don't because we are tolerant, respectful people. :) CL responded to an old post of Neo's that mentioned CL negatively, and he responded in words reflecting his own (CL's)belief system -- and SIX people respond to that post--calling him a nut, telling him that his God must hate him, etc etc etc. It was a pretty vicious reaction. He does NOT bring up Edwarda. Ish does. And then things get wild-- without much help from CL. You get the inevitable rehashing of it all, replete with visits from EVERYONE from the past- (I swear, it was like that old TV show, This Is Your Life- remember me?....) At the end of it all, you have a much-muddied and distorted question, which is did CL do something that merits banning? Or are we all just still so really furious at his ill-timed, completely inappropriate posts about someone whom people loved and who died two years ago, that we just can't miss out on a chance to go over it all-- yet again-- CL posted only because he was mentioned, and had no one paid any attention he would have faded away again. He did nothing that merited banning besides be his usual religiously obnoxious self. Far as I'm concerned, this thread had a giant, let's get down in the mud Friday night free-for-all with CL at the bottom of the pile and everyone loved every minute of it and had a great time. It's like being in the neighborhood pub, having a few, and then brawling. I'd forget it and move on, as CL will as soon as no one bothers with him. But it sure was a fascinating read this morning, a really excellent example of SI at its wooliest and wildest. For the record, I dislike banning anyone, no matter how awful they are. I think you are a brave man, and are trying very hard to be fair, though. Kudos.