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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Epinephrine who wrote (183688)	2/25/2004 8:46:06 PM
From: SI Dave	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572373

Epinephrine, I think I've covered my intentions and rationale pretty thoroughly by now. Nonetheless, I'll re-address some of your points: >>The way to get SI "back in order" is to preserve the long term integrity of the information of it's boards and to be faithful to the many posters who post on a given subject assuming that their posts will be preserved The thread title as it currently stands preserves the integrity of the heritage on-topic posts. It also advises members of the current status of the thread, and the thread header directs them to an alternative thread for AMD discussion. However, it does not preclude anyone from continuing AMD discussion here, or from linking to messages from the as far back as the thread's inception. >>The solution is not to reward off topic posters by handing threads over to them as soon as their level of activity reaches a large enough volume. I am not handing it off to off-topic posters - that happened a long time ago with the AMD posters left and/or past management didn't respond to off-topic postings. >>Think about it, you're actually encouraging the pirating of inactive threads with that policy. You are mixing past and present. I've been actively interceding to eliminate disruptive and off-topic posting on investment threads that still have a material amount of on-topic activity. Such was not the case here. >>Please rethink your policy. If and when a better solution is put forth, I will. Your input towards that end is noted and appreciated. Dave