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.

SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Welcome New SI Members! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: c.horn who wrote (19619)	9/12/2003 9:21:48 PM
From: Bux	Respond to of 32883

c.horn, while I agree with you completely, it looks like the "whiny brats" got their way anyway. They got Matt to suspend every last IDCC poster who doesn't hold as gospel that IDCC is a future telecom giant. It makes no difference that their whiny little complaints had no substance, Matt bought into the story. It was the whiny little brats way or they were going to hit the highway. He finally kicked me off after some of them made good on their threats and returned to Raging Bull where posters that weren't "loyal" could be hushed without debate. The clubhouse. It's not about TOU violations, it's about censorship, pure and simple. Anyone who denies it is turning a blind eye to the facts. I think he actually believes that someone posting endless positives is more valuable than someone who doesn't buy into the hype. It would make sense seeing how he started out as a stock promoter. You didn't see Matt running around poking holes in the hype that was rampant during his introduction to the world of investing. It just goes to show that people tend to stay close to their roots. Bux

To: c.horn who wrote (19619)	9/13/2003 2:18:42 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32883

c.horn, back when SI first started, the prevailing attitude was that the Internet represented a publishing media for the masses. While it was obvious the quality of the writing varied from site to site, it was nevertheless another form of the written word and thus viewed in that context. Hence, people sued for defamation were charged with libel, not slander. These many years later the courts have now warmed to the argument that the Internet is really one large free-wheeling discussion and thus more akin to the spoken word-- which is quite legally significant since courts hold people that truly publish material to a much higher standard than those that utter the same thing at a party. The point here is that while message boards might have been idealistic when they first started, i.e. aiming to attract a collection of deep-thinking individuals engaging in a polite round-table conversation, they've certainly seen the light by now. In retrospect, it should have been common sense that people posting in a nameless, faceless environment would be much more likely to say things they'd never say directly to someone's face. I'm not saying message boards can't strive to be civil, just that perhaps it might be instructive to severely lower people's expectations. - Jeff