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 : SI Postings Preserved for Posterity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Dave who wrote (60)	8/28/2005 12:49:50 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 115

"I'm pretty sure "pause Ignore" functionality was added when the ignore logic automatically included posts to an ignored user in addition to posts from them. The logic was recently changed to not exclude posts to the ignored user." It makes no difference to my point. "Aside, the Ignore (and Ban) features are undoubtedly employed more practically and productively on Investment boards, where users utilize Ignore as a way to leverage the amount of time spent on those threads by improving the signal:noise ratio" With all due respect--that is nonsense. It takes no less time to read "message ignored" (or whatever it says) than to NOT read the damn message. "Rather than blaming the features, I'll argue that it is the users who actively engage in provoking others into creating bans and ignores while simultaneously making a stink about them are really the ones to blame for that state of affairs." That is sophistry. Your blunt statement certainly doesn't "argue" anything. Online discussion can engender a bit of roughhousing. But pretending to ignore somebody as a childish game (while you are reading all the messages) is simply disgusting--DON'T YOU THINK? Who has ever provoked someone into creating a "ban"? You know as well as I, that in the majority of cases, "bans" are levied to stifle free speech and to assuage warped egos. Ignores are NOT truly ignores so that is just risible--RIGHT? So we have only to look at how sensible "bans" are. Thread heads are "provoked" into creating them, you say?? What if there were only TOU? They could not THEN be "provoked"--could they?? Don't think that I am against you personally because I am expressing my opinion. I am not trying to "provoke" anything at all. I think SI can be improved. I am quite certain you would agree with that.

To: SI Dave who wrote (60)	8/28/2005 1:00:58 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 115

I have just looked a t about 20 banned people and invariably it had nothing to do with TOU--it had to do with the person who was BANNING. Society has spent 50 million years to develop the right to free speech. SI has spent less than a decade to argue how best to suffocate this right. Think about it? Liberals are banned from Republican threads and vice-versa. Atheists are banned from religious threads and vice-versa. And the liberal is "provoking" HER banning; and the Republican is "provoking" HIS banning??? IT IS ALL NONSENSE.