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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FaultLine who wrote (79394)	3/4/2003 2:34:41 AM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

characterizations of the President's supporters as Brown Shirts or that sort of nonsense. Do you mean like the term Warmongers? Although you didn't ask me, I think free speech should prevail. M@I'llbutoutnow.thnx

To: FaultLine who wrote (79394)	3/4/2003 9:11:59 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Sure FL, if you want to put the term "peaceniks" off limit that's fine with me. Of course, M has a valid point and "warmongerer" would also need to go. Michael@aslongasitcutsbothwaysimokwithit.com

To: FaultLine who wrote (79394)	3/4/2003 12:53:47 PM
From: FaultLine	Respond to of 281500

Michael Cummings: Sure FL, if you want to put the term "peaceniks" off limit that's fine with me. Of course, M has a valid point and "warmongerer" would also need to go. Michael@aslongasitcutsbothwaysimokwithit.com moenmac: IMO the only ones who should be moderated off are religious or conspiracy theory fanatics who can't back up claims with fact. Personal attacks should be admonished, and abusers "put in jail." Spam should be prohibited. JohnM: Definitely not a good idea. I say we keep the right to say what we wish and to disagree with one another over whether it's helpful, thoughtful, considerate, and the like to use those words. Thanks, all good replies which, IMO, do not particularly conflict with each other. I appreciate MC's flexibility on the issue, I like mm's succinct statement of policy, and agree with John's concern over stifling and complicated rules for expression. Apparently there is nothing to change since I've tried to use a moenmac-like POV from day one; it's just that moenmac has stated it so crisply. :o) I guess the 'What exactly is SPAM?' question remains on the table, but I think we can come to a reasonable agreement on that as we move ahead. --fl (I'm going to go back now and read this morning's other posts to see if the 'Korea' issue is more-or-less the topic today.)