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 (10852)	4/26/2002 12:19:10 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 21057

Nope he isn't coming back I think he has the right idea

To: Lane3 who wrote (10852)	4/26/2002 3:03:53 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

This is an interesting scenario--from a strictly academic perspective, of course. I could ask, say, Solon and Tim and Charley not to post to me. As a result, they could not post either to or about me and I could not post to or about them, as well. From an academic perspective, you're in error. In the stated rule.. A request by another poster that you not post to them or make comments about them in your posts are expected to be honored. You may not quote from their posts or provide links to their posts. You may not refer to them directly or indirectly. That does not mean you cannot comment on the subject being discussed by that poster in your own posts. Your comments in such a situation should be substantive and not personal. Note that there is no stated obligation or restriction on the party requesting that they not be posted to. So the requesting party may continue to post to, about, or quote directly or by link on the party to which they made the request. This might not sound reasonable, but we know that it is true. The party requesting that they not be posted to continued to post to said party they requested and no warning was issued to that party that they should desist. It seems to me, therefore, that an amendment to the rule is in order, i.e., placing restrictions or obligations on the part of the requestor as you implied in your post. We should also expect as reasonable that the moderator should be bound by the stated rule. For if the moderator is not bound by the rules [which in this case seemed to be created on the fly] then what would be the point of the rule? It would be a rule that is arbitrarily applied, which would vacate the rule. I will add the following statement: To Lazarus Long: For this post and subject and only this post and subject: do not post to me, jttmab. There. Lazarus can no longer post to me, on this subject or make any direct or indirect references to my post; nor can he amend the rule, because that would be referring to my post which says that an amendment is in order. Alternatively, he could post to me and he would either have to issue himself a warning to not do so again or he would be penalized, or the rule would be vacated. To take this subject and relate it to politics and governance. This is an illustration of the problem[s] in developing laws and/or treaties, etc.. Despite the best intentions of the rule makers. There's always some a$$hole [usually many] that devises a way to use the rules to their advantage or to find a loophole in the rule to accomplish something [usually negative] that the rule makers never intended. This tactic or strategy has been applied in international politics in a variety of ways. There were those in Northern Ireland that asserted that no peace agreement was fair, because if the other party agreed to it, then the peace agreement must be to their advantage. There are also certain tactics in rule making. For example, I can say that I will not sign a peace agreement or cease fire agreement until the other party ceases hostilities for a period of, e.g., 30 days. This is a quite clever rule, if I do not want a peace agreement. For if the other party in fact shows that they are complying and I do not want the agreement to go into affect, then I whip out the ol' cattle prod and ram it up their rear. I'm confident that the other dude, will respond violently sooner rather than later, with my objective that it be before the time limit expires. This is a favored rule making tactic of Sharon. jttmab