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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Dave who wrote (178036)	5/20/2004 12:16:46 PM
From: Robert O	Respond to of 186894

Thanks for follow up Dave, I don't think it's a life or death issue either and in fact much of yours post helps make my point. My indicating the TOU was 'loose' was meant to imply exactly what you state: SI purposely set the guidelines so broad as to be able to censor whatever they deem in their wisdom should be censored. While I think it's a bit of hyperbole to state 'it would be next to impossible to operate otherwise' it would make for more time and effort, less profit and to what end? I'm sure SI does not want to direct its resources toward building a long and illustrious body of 'law.' <<I have no idea if her company is real or not, but am open minded so if anyone can provide any evidence it is real please post it." >> How come I don't get to post that but you do?? <g> <<Major difference. Asking if someone knows if it's true versus asking someone to post evidence are on opposite sides of the line.>> Of course this is becoming rabbit-holeish, as you must feel yourself. We are allowed to ask if someone 'knows' something but in no way are we to make explicit what is implicit in asking for someone's knowledge e.g., it's likely they have some underpinning to how they ‘know’ it and will tell so. In any event, evidence is presented to others so that they might make a determination of the merit of the evidence and come to their own conclusion about what might be valid or not. In the former instance someone has an opinion, in the latter they post an opinion of what constitute 'evidence' in their mind. All of this may be beside the point in that that Amy freely posts (ad nauseam) to her status, duties, roles, etc. within her alleged start up. I'm not sure it's fair then to protect the posting of add'l opinions of what others may think is information about her company that may happen to identify the company …as long a there is not a specific intent to try and identify her within it if that is not her wish. (I still have never been presented with anything that shows it is her wish.) In other words I tend to agree SI should have wide latitude to protect a poster’s anonymity if it is clear they want it but what if it were revealed that the company in questions has 550 employees, are we really identifying the pseudonym persona 'amy' now?? Again, I understand your wish to act prophylactically rather than not and I acknowledge your wide latitude status as ombudsmen to do it (by design). Best Regards, RO