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: one_less who wrote (66873)	11/17/2002 10:38:06 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

" In most cases when a valid criticism has been established, those who crossed the line of decency have come clean and made amends." If you think this actually happened, we have not been reading the same thread. Unless of course you draw the lines of decency in very weird places. Then that might work for you. What actually happened here is that everyone crossed the lines of decency, most of the group did it with wild and gleeful abandon, and they've never come back. Now there were exceptions in Neo and Kholt, but aside from them, I can't think of anyone else. The beginning is not now. This conflict has become a mythology for both sides. It now is symbolic. I also don't agree that all the conduct is separate. Behavior doesn't happen in a vacuum. It is all inter-related. To discuss the response, without the stimulus is meaningless (imo). That is why I told E that to discuss CH's behavior without Poet's behavior, it to address only one side of the coin. Ch doesn't need a "defense" for posts that do not violate the TOU. I suppose you can argue with him about the validity of what he does, but that is not what went on here. You are a not posse. You are not the vigilante TOU makers for SI. The well known lawyer trick that you do not like, is to recognize controlling angry people, who need a cause, and a focus. The focus in this case (CH) certainly had some behavior. But the real question (for me) is whether that behavior justified the reaction. The answer to that for me, is a resounding no. That doesn't mean and never has meant I thought all the behavior in question was "good", but I do see it as protectable, for the very reason your behavior later (with the "don't post to me, you're harassing me") so aptly demonstrated.