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: E who wrote (102181)	4/27/2005 1:31:13 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

It's not about his being "accepted back in to the fold"- I didn't care whether he was or not, in fact, it's NOT ABOUT CH. Are you ever going to get that? It's about mob justice- something I don't approve of. You just don't understand why I see the mob behavior as wrong, as MORE wrong that what CH did in the first place, and I'm sorry you can't see that. You don't have to agree, but I don't think you can even SEE the problem. And even though I think you were wrong then, and even though I think it's awful you go in to 3d to go after people, I would still think it was a greater wrong for a bunch of people to gang up on you and come after you. If justice is to be had, it should be had within the rules of society- I believe in the rule of law. I don't believe it's always fair, I don't trust it with lives (as I told someone recently) but it's ALWAYS better than a mob, because the rule of law is reflective, and it requires the weighing of evidence, and it is not a mob (and the "evidence" from SI in this case would be laughed out of any court in this country). And the rule of law isn't having fun pursuing its victim. YOUR behavior was, in my opinion, worse than what I saw CH do. It will always be much worse, because you cannot change what I saw, and how I order bad behaviors. You can, of course, justify your behavior, and believe that what you did was "right"- you cannot make me agree with you. You can, of course, now imagine that it was my fault CH wouldn't stop- a feat of imagination that I think is pretty amazing, considering I told him publicly AND privately to stop, but you will believe what you want, and without relation to any reality I am aware of. You do that all the time, and you are a master of it. You can imagine that it was SI's fault not to take action against CH, and not that he hadn't actually done anything actionable. You can imagine all sorts of things, but in the end, I don't think you handled things correctly. Now that you've added on victims- just who are the extras? Do they include me? CH sent me one of the nastiest posts I've gotten on SI- it was so nasty I kept it to remind me of what he was capable of, as I keep many such posts. I like to remember who people are, really. He is, of course, like most people on SI, just someone who was overcome with anger in a net forum that allows people to disengage the controls that we put on ourselves in 3d. That said, I don't think he, or you, or I, or anyone else, deserves a mob to come after them. If there is a problem, you go to the TOU. If the TOU have not been violated, then you ignore the problem, or you try to handle it personally, or you go away if you can't handle it. I am not backing off anything I have ever said- save one thing- I once said I would never honor a "to or about"- and I changed my mind on that. I used to be worried about them simply because I don't always pay attention who I am posting to. The ideas are often more important than the person. So I was always afraid that if I entered one I would forget in the middle of a conversation who I was talking to, and accidentally post to someone. I still think that is a concern, but on balance I do think they have thir utility. So, one change. Carefully considered.