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 (68397)	11/26/2002 4:56:19 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Well, I'm departing now, and when I come back will join the trial of a new spirit here, but here's a summary of what's been most interesting clarification imo the last couple of days, interminable though it's seemed: X... think about this: Look how two or three unwelcome emails that arrived from a former email friend, over a few minutes, emails containing no threats, no sex, no insinuations, made you feel. You experienced it as harmful harassment. And you don't have the illness PTSD. You could of course simply have put me on email Ignore. They call it "blocking." Of course that would have been "taking on the burden," in you words, of putting me on Ignore, and why should you, when you had an option you preferred? No reason at all. Now think about how months of the kinds of public posts CH kept sending to Poet (sexual content, threats, personal info, insinuations, following from thread to thread), in this venue, where she was spending a significant part of every day trading options and chatting with friends, would make her feel. Poet was investing here, and has friends here. Why in the world should she "take on the burden" of putting someone who's making threats on ignore? Why should she leave? She worked here, made money here, had social connections here. You believe in RULES: SI has a RULE against harassment on SI. Other things, too. Improper behavior is one. I repeat that: It is against the RULES of SI to harass someone or behave improperly toward them. The person who does the harassing is supposed to be made to stop. The TOU do not say that the one being harassed should put her harasser on Ignore, or leave SI, as you seem to think. They say harassment is against the RULES. CH violated those RULES, didn't he? What Poet experienced when an SI rule was violated was a multiple of what you call harassment when it's you involved. If it's you, a small, brief thing is HUGE. If it's Poet, a big, protracted thing is nothing. All support for the harasser. SI HAS RULES AGAINST HARASSMENT. That they didn't enforce. Guess why? So social sanctions against egregious violations of the rules came into being. Except you sided with the rule-breaking harasser. Ask yourself, X, whether SI has a RULE against harassment on SI, and whether the penalty for its being broken is, according to the RULE, supposed to be that the victim takes on the burden of leaving SI.