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 (63429)	10/23/2002 5:39:28 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't know. I think Bill is capable of intelligent discussion if he chooses to be. There is an interesting and, I think, important principle here which is worth discussing. Obviously, objecting to Sherry's spam was unpopular. But in free societies that's where the rubber meets the road. Nobody objects to people taking unpopular stands. It's only where one takes an unpopular stand that the issues can be clarified. Do we live in a society where we expect adherence to rules both by the "good" guys and the bad guys? Was Bill taking the position that rules should apply only to the bad guys and not to the good guys, so that it's okay for some people to break the rules but not for others? And, in that case, who gets to decide who the good guys and bad guys are? It looks as though that's the position he was taking, but I have seen too many wrong words put into other peoples' mouths here in SI to want to do it myself, which is why I asked him to clarify himself. Because that's what it looks like he was saying. He also seemed to be saying that if a citizen sees the law being broken, but thinks it's being broken for a reason he approves of, he should keep his mouth shut and move on. But is that the right way to assure an open and free society? These are important points, IMO. In the microcosm of the SI world and this particular spamming episode they may seem minor, but this episode gives us a way to address broader issues in a way we don't usually get to do, by reference not to the generic but to the specific. It's only when there is a clash of your principles and your preferences that something meaningful has a chance to pop out.