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.

Pastimes : SI vs. iHub - Battle of the Boards Part 2 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d:oug who wrote (4851)	9/14/2003 12:01:32 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5315

Doug, I don't disagree with your post. In my admittedly too long post, I think you missed my major point. That is, given what I felt was an arbitrary and not consistent approach to "punishment", it is difficult to determine what is considered ok and what is not. When calling someone a hook-nosed rat was not punished and responding that this person is a bigot or loves Mussolini or Hitler was punished, I don't believe there is a consistency there. I'd be happy to live by the rules. I'd like to just make sure they are consistent and applied evenly and fairly to all so that all will know what is tolerated and what is not. As I posted before, I changed my style considerably after the first suspension but others did not. I also would be happy if all this type of "discussion" if you can call it that were eliminated as inherently uncivil. If that's your suggestion, I also agree. If the rule is that the TOU is applied as the administrator/owner arbitrarily interprets them as he sees fit, end of discussion, then that is his right in my opinion. Just get it out in the open so everyone is clear that this is the rule.