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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (346244)	1/22/2003 11:00:25 PM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Check how Mickey Kaus links to Eve Tushnet's weblog. Links are at the bottom of the page. Eve Tushnet--Queer, Catholic, conservative and not Andrew Sullivan! slate.msn.com Kaus is a respected journalist and wouldn't use a word he thought was an epithet. I'm not positive, but isn't there a large segment of the gay population that prefers 'queer' over 'gay'?

To: epicure who wrote (346244)	1/22/2003 11:01:59 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

you are worried about offending sodomites? Yet how many children are KILLED every year in an abortion grinder? No tear jerking speeches from you for them ,huh? BTW, do you consider this post "hate speech"? Message 18467370 There is going to be a new reality show. It is going to be called "The Non-Survivor". 18 pregnant women are going to be stranded in a abortion clinic. Each week, Internet viewers will vote on which woman must have an abortion that very night, and then MUST leave the abortion clinic. The last two pregnant women will then have an abortion contest, where the first one done, will win ten years of free abortion services. The show, the "Non-Survivor", is going to be advertised as a comedy. if so then you better tell SI about that loser, Barry.

To: epicure who wrote (346244)	1/23/2003 12:14:57 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

Oh, in that case I apologize and you can take the blame. I just applied Rat's favorite method of "proving" his conspiracy theories: Cui bono? Oh, well. Sometimes it doesn't work. Will you tell him that? That maybe some of what he believes really, really is insane? Queer? Pardon moi, but I personally have heard gays use that word in referring to themselves and their friends. I do get into San Fran every now and then. So in that case, how can it be so offensive? Because it burns your tender little ears? Tough. Yo mama need to kick yo butt gud, too. I'd turn you in. Great. I'll keep that in mind. I'll return the favor at the earliest opportunity. thank goodness really vile hate speech is prohibited. Yeah? Explain Vidrine to me then. any more than a black person should have to see the "n" word all over the place. Pardon moi. I've heard them use that in reference to themselves and others too. The only problem with these words seems to come when someone who is not gay or black uses them. So do you think justice should turn on sexual orientation or skin color? I would have posted this earlier, but I didn't get around to seeing this whole dust up until just now. You're a little slow. This dust up has been exploding for a while. SI is a private enterprise, they can have rules, and I'm glad they do. I sent this PM to Jeff a little while ago: I'm sure you've noticed that the standards of civility on SI have significantly deteriorated as time has gone by. At this point I think maybe Jill really did have the right idea- -no profanity, and anything more than mild jesting name calling gets a jail term. But that's not what we have. What we have is a situation rapidly deteriorating into chaos with little in the way of identifiable rules. What is harassment, anyway? If what Chris Hodgkin did to YlangYlangBreeze and Poet isn't, what is? And yet, as far I know, he never even received a warning. You did step in once and told them to break it up, but that was it. In the absence of identifiable limits, it is impossible for people to know what is acceptable and what is not. If they can't tell when they've crossed a line, how can it be fair to punish them? You've already probably guessed why I'm writing: jlallen. That Let's Not Start The War thread, I'm sure you've noticed, is quite a mudfest. I'd say it's worse than the GWB thread and that's saying a lot. There are very few, and possibly no, posters in Let's Not Start The War who could not be hung under a strict interpretation of the TOU. With the likes of Ray Duray, TigerPaw, Ed Huang, zonder, and Thomas M on one side and JLA, Bill, PROLIFE, and I on the other and no rules, what can be expected? Now I'm not going to argue that he should not have been given a stiff warning for what he said. He should have. But given the current lack of identifiable limits, I do believe a jail sentence is too stiff. My understanding is that he has not even been told how long his sentence is. That, I believe, is also unfair. At this point I'd say the minimum he is due is a defined sentence. And maybe the fair thing is to let him back on and announce that there will be strict limits and then enforce them. Now: How is it your boyfriend got away with bloody murder and you have no problem with that but JLA should be hung? BRING BACK JLA!!!!