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: AK2004 who wrote (4931)	9/21/2003 5:35:19 PM
From: Sidney Reilly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5315

About that anthrax...it's a tangled web and powerful forces are involved.... Message 19262706

To: AK2004 who wrote (4931)	9/21/2003 5:47:09 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5315

I think we have another example here of a poster who largely supports theses on threads devoted to "hate," that is, for example that the US is evil, is controlled by Israel, or there are Jews everywhere, or conservatives are bad, or all but conservatives are bad. What's funny is the tone and argument is often very similar from whichever viewpoint it comes from. Extremists on the left and the right and religious extremists, tend to sound very similar, have similar targets, and say the same thing, without even realizing that they sound like those they would also normally "hate." When other posters are critical of hate-inspired stereotypes, they are labelled "annoying." If someone agrees with the critic, it is claimed he is the same poster, a fairly serious charge in the TOU world. (In my opinion, a TOU charge, which is unsupported and can be disproven factually, should be a TOU violation.) It is not surprising that posters who may have suffered the loss of family or friends at the hands of tyrants because of religious fanaticism, may find fault with someone who constantly foments religious hatred. So the problem here for the administrator is 1)does he encourage/discourage this type of posting environment 2) if so, does he prohibit what might be generally termed "bigoted" posts as difficult as that may be to define and 3) should he "punish" those who are critical of "bigots" or "bigoted posts." Merely blowing the whistle and calling it a "personal attack" and missing the rest of the environment is, IMO, arbitary enforcement.