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.

SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Welcome New SI Members! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: laura_bush who wrote (20508)	3/17/2004 12:18:09 AM
From: Rainy_Day_Woman	Respond to of 32871

my guess? any thread is fair game as long as it follows TOU

To: laura_bush who wrote (20508)	3/17/2004 8:44:28 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32871

The linked posts in question (which I wrote) correct ridiculous factual inaccuracies by a poster. The TOU's do not prohibit that. In this case, the poster suggested that because Canadian immigration law only allowed Asians to emigrate to Canada during the 1990's if they had a million dollars, while U.S. law was purportedly looser, U.S. workers were being hurt. The poster specifically cited Vancouver as a place that Asians (Chinese and Indians) could get in only if they had a million dollars. That's preposterous. Nearly half a million Asians -- most Chinese and Indian -- live in Vancouver, and most of them got in under a point system which I described in detail in the post and which does not require you to have any money. The point system rewards education, work experience, and learning Canada's two languages, among other things. The same poster was at it again later in the evening, claiming the WTO never blocked Bush's steel tariffs. In fact the Bush tariffs (something Bush did which I disagree with, BTW) were blocked by the WTO last July, and the ruling was upheld on appeal in December. Retaliatory sanctions in the billions of dollars were announced before Bush backed down and lifted the tariffs. SI readers who don't follow international trade disputes might read that poster's posts and actually be tempted to believe them, which in the end only harms the credibility of SI as a place with knowledgable posters making informative comments about economic and other issues. Incidentally, the first set of posts weren't about Bush at all (though one did ask what Kerry's position was on immigration). The WTO post didn't say anything about Bush other than that his attempt to impose tariffs was overruled by the WTO. The posts are an attempt to improve SI by exposing a penchant by some to just make stuff up to support their political agenda (and in this case I believe the posts being challenged are also being made to support a personal animus toward Asians, though that is just my opinion based on other comments that poster has made about people of Asian origin). Are you suggesting that the poster being "attacked" (the word "challenged" fits better) was correct in her original claims? Does Canada exclude Asians from emigrating their unless they have a million dollars? Did the WTO say Bush's steel tariffs were ok by them? And which specific paragraph of the TOU were violated by the posts in question?

To: laura_bush who wrote (20508)	3/17/2004 7:48:02 PM
From: SI Dave	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 32871

New threads that are titled or described to be a forum to "harass" or "attack" another member will be deleted. Existing threads meeting that criteria will be modified as warranted. Of course, that leads to the larger issue of new and/or existing threads that could be argued to be forums for exactly that type of content, despite their titles, descriptions, or original topic/purpose. Practically every politically oriented thread has varying amounts of content that could be construed as attacking the messenger instead of the message. It comes with the territory, and nothing short of a Herculean effort by the membership and administration can cure it, given the constraints of human nature and current system design. As many of you have noticed, we renamed a little used forum into "Politics/Government, etc." and moved many of the politically oriented threads to it. (There will be additional refinements in site organization after the new UI is completed.) In the meantime, segregating the political threads from other Coffee Shop and Investment threads will allow us to focus TOU enforcement on discussion areas which bring greater value to the site. The greatest degree of attention will be given towards Investment threads, followed by Coffee Shop, then Politics/Government. Some threads within the first two groups may, for now, receive some discretionary dispensation regarding TOU enforcement; some examples include but are not limited to threads created for humor and idle chat, as well as some heritage investment threads. However, members should be reminded that more egregious violations of the TOU, solely as determined by the site admins, will be subject to administrative action as described in the TOU.