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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (5419)	1/6/2004 7:58:13 AM
From: lorne	Respond to of 20773

Dale. You said...." A nine-bagger spam merchant who needs a vacation: Message 19657012 How is posting an article from a news source spam. I believe that islam terrorist are a real threat as does the government of the USA. When they raise or lower their terrorist alert system on all news outlets to alert citizens to possible danger is that also spam in your mind? Or maybe you just have a thing about anyone posting anything YOU don't agree with. In any case I feel I have done nothing wrong. Look around SI dale and see some of the real hate filled stuff being posted so if you in some way enjoy reporting others who have a different view than yourself then you should be kept busy for a long time.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (5419)	1/6/2004 8:14:07 AM
From: lorne	Respond to of 20773

Here ya go dale....Maybe you should report this poster to SI Bob. Just trying to help you with your appointed duties here on SI. :-) Italian Il Giornale: Al Qaeda Threatens to Nuke New York on February 2 Special Report December 31, 2003, 12:03 AM (GMT+02:00) The banner headline spread across the front page of Il Giornale, the respected Milan daily reads: “Al Qaeda: We will destroy New York within 35 days. Threat on the Internet. Countdown begins.” Message 19650516 ----------------------------- Or maybe this would qualify? Message 19653293

To: Dale Baker who wrote (5419)	1/6/2004 6:28:05 PM
From: lorne	Respond to of 20773

Dale. You posted this to SI bob...." A nine-bagger spam merchant who needs a vacation: Message 19657012 As I told you I was not aware of the spam rules you posted for SI. I was aware of those rules listed on the SI web site and was not aware the I broke any SI rules. I once reported a fellow poster whom I always disagreed with because he openly threatened to do harm to him/her self I reported this poster because I was concerned this poster might actually harm themselves and thought maybe SI could somehow contact this person. I did not like anything or agree with anything this poster said. That as near as I can remember is the only time I ever contacted SI admin. I have never ever felt the need to rat out on fellow posters now matter how outrageous and hateful I felt there posts were. They have a right to their opinions as do I and you. I have this image of you rubbing your hands together and cackling gleefully as you posted this to SI Bob....." A nine-bagger spam merchant who needs a vacation: Message 19657012 It appears to me that my post was offensive to you and that is why you found it necessary to check and see what else I may have posted. Is there some reason why you could not just say something like.....Hey dude I think you are in violation of SI spam rules...or even a PM advising me that I may be in violation of SI spam rules? I could then look into the matter myself. Perhaps you get some sort of pleasure out of doing this sort of thing and that's ok as well. As for your rules neither one of us was totally correct. The rule you stated is not written in SI rules but is more an unwritten rule that I am sure many many on SI are not aware of. After a couple of contacts with SI bob and after being attacked by a couple more dudes like you..you know real important guys... anyway for your information and for others who may not be aware of the unwritten rules of SI here is what SI bob explained to me. And thank goodness that the SI personal are gifted with common sense and realized that I had no intent to spam as you suggested. Here >>>> SI BOB To:lorne who wrote (20014) From: SI Admin (Bob) Tuesday, Jan 6, 2004 1:41 PM Respond to of 20024 So exactly how would one go about informing others on other threads with whom I have on going discussion about a topic or news item I have come across. ----------------------------------- One doesn't. One picks the (at most) two most relevant threads for it. It's kind of the reverse of what you or someone else asked earlier about whether someone only bookmarks one thread. The people you want to "reach" aren't typically segregated into separate threads. I'd bet that well over half of the people who have a bookmark on any one of those 9 threads you posted to also have a bookmark on at least 4 of the others. How do you think the spam aspect of the post got noticed? Someone (likely many people) saw it multiple times because they read many of those threads. As I have said my intention was not to spam but to inform others with whom I chatted with of a news item. Is this not allowed? ---------------------------------------- If it involves posting the same or nearly the same thing 9 times, no it isn't. Does this also apply to personal opinions as this is done always by many on SI? --------------------------------------- If the opinions are identically or nearly identically worded, it's considered spam. That doesn't mean, however, that if someone's post always have the same underlying theme ("I hate republicans", "I hate democrats", or whatever) that they're considered spam. Frequency and duplication are the key elements. Does arbitrary mean it is not a stead fast rule? but is customary? ---------------------------------------- Neither and both. "Arbitrary" means it's a number that was plucked out of the air ages ago by someone (me or a previous administrator) but we've never made a real specific entry regarding it in the Terms of Use. Mainly (IMO) because doing so would result in people imposing impossibly-difficult "requirements" on us for defining it, then also requiring us to do the same for each and every rule contained in the TofU. Things like "Spam is defined as posting more than two messages in a 24-hour period in which greater than 80% of the content of the messages is the same." Easier to deal with it the way we already do. A general understanding of what we consider spam, and clarification for those who broke the rule innocently enough (such as yourself) and suspension or termination for those with more evil intent, such as to tout a stock to every thread they can post to before they're stopped.