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: Bill who wrote (96460)	2/24/2005 11:31:37 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

If there are no ad hominems there is nothing to discuss. Issues you can discuss anywhere. If you have opinions on an issue, air them everywhere you can, start your own thread, whatever. Permanent bans simply mean (usually) that the banee has been so nasty or disruptive that the person banning them doesn't want to be exposed to that kind of crap ever again. A perfectly legitimate tactic, imo, since I see no reason to expose oneself again and again to behavior one would never tolerate in 3d. There are people on SI who seem to feel they have a "right" to talk to people, and if they don't get their way, they have a "right" to retaliate. I suggest to you that no one has a right to talk to anyone else. You may have the privilege to talk to someone else, but when you lose it, abusing people even further is rarely the way to get people to want to talk to you. Permanent bans remind me of what one should do to violent offenders who go out of their way to hurt others. Lock them up for life, and throw away the key. And left or right the clubhouses bother me not at all. People should feel free to talk to people with whom they feel comfortable, and absolutely should be able to shun those people who call names, follow them around to harass them, and such like.