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 (4952)	9/22/2003 1:47:20 AM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5315

re: If the rruff(s) and anti-Bux types would stop crying over these very very few people assuming that you are right, does not that put your lengthy posts in the same "crying" category? re: to make these sites do what was intended for, investment folks gather and talk markets issues for buy-hold-sell, and off topics placed on them non market boards. perhaps you have a point here but unfortunately it does not work like that. Even on "pure" investment threads there are plenty of political messages of questinable kind. re: Unlike rruff, i do believe you might see that the "thing" being discussed here, as points by you, rruff, bux etc etc are NOT legitimate issues based on the WHERE they are being made. perhaps you give ruff too little credit or perhaps you give me too much credit or perhaps the points are exactly about SI and iHub (that is you give yourself too much credit).

To: d:oug who wrote (4952)	9/22/2003 8:55:00 AM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5315

I really hate to be blunt sometimes as you seem to have some good intentions. However, you go on and on. Since I raised this subject, I feel I need to respond with an answer to your posts to or about my issue. I'm trying not to be critical but it seems we will be bombarded with endless rambling posts before we ever get a response from the Owner and/or a clarification as to how TOU is to be enforced As I posted before, perhaps it's me, I find your posts really are not comprehensible. Again, maybe it's me. I am not going to say what my IQ is but let's say I've rarely had problems with comprehension in the past. You have your own style. My interpretation of your posts and, it is my interpretation, is that you wish to be some sort of apologist or defender of these boards, around which a significant portion of your life revolves. You seem to enjoy your own posts and write for your own pleasure. You feel you have all the answers and want to eliminate others with whom you may disagree. You feel their disagreement is some sort of attack on SI and expresses an intent to destroy SI. You do not leave yourself open to the thought that you may be wrong and that the critic often times creates improvement. In essence, I think you are doing the same thing you accuse me of doing. You have your favorite restaurant. When the waiter comes over and asks how the meal was, you are always positive. You get upset and chastise others who may complain that their particular meal was less than they expected. You would prefer that the chef only get glowing compliments so that his feelings are not hurt and your favorite restaurant never changes. You do not think it possible that the chef may improve with constructive criticism and the restaurant quality will be enhanced ultimately to your benefit.