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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (90117)	11/30/2004 10:58:20 AM
From: E	Respond to of 108807

Yes, I've missed your point, based on this exchange, which was my attempt to understand it: My question: "What's an example of a "personal attack" post (two would be better) that you think rose to the level of a violation of Grainne's stated guidelines?" Your answer: "I think this sums it up pretty well.....credit to JC..... It's only human nature for one's belief system to influence their decisions in matters of justice, whether consciously or subconsciously." My query about your answer above: "You consider [that belief system line above] a 'personal attack' ... that you think rose to the level of a violation of Grainne's stated guidelines?" So, JLA, the "point" to which you refer, the one I'm missing, must be contained elsewhere than in the line you said "sums it up." Where, though? Do you, or does anyone, have examples (please provide more than one for any individual poster) of posts you that you believe should have resulted in banning by G because of "personal attacks" they contains? The way it stands is 1) we seem to agree that neither hypocrisy nor condescension are practicable grounds for banning; 2) you don't assert that G bans for political disagreement; 3) and you have provided no examples of a "personal attack" posts that you think rose to the level of a violation of Grainne's stated guidelines except this one: It's only human nature for one's belief system to influence their decisions in matters of justice, whether consciously or subconsciously.

To: jlallen who wrote (90117)	11/30/2004 11:12:55 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

P.S. I haven't really missed your point entirely, despite how poorly it seems to me you "proved" it. Your actual point seems to me be summed up here: Insults dressed up...still are insults..... Sure they are. But they aren't content-free name-calling, are they? If you want to be insulting and still post here, learn how to do it with enough subtlety and intellectual content addressed to the topic at issue to suit the venue, is my suggestion. If you find yourself incapable of such rhetorical subtleties, it would be best, I think, for you to post where the requirements aren't a burden to you. I purposely insulted you twice in this post, to make a point: I think I did it without violating the guidelines. I do try to be helpful! (If someone who's been banned wants to return, wiser and more circumspect, I'll bet G would give them another chance. Not that I've asked her, I haven't. But there's no point, if they haven't learned the rules.)