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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Off Topic -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rink who wrote (34)	7/13/2006 7:16:12 AM
From: TGPTNDR	Respond to of 1141

Rink, Re: The result of the vote is that Doug will get suspended for two weeks, i.e. until July 27. Of the 45 votes a bit over 60% voted for the suspension.> I am truly surprised by the vote result. Pleasantly surprised. Re: ...Your comments... Both exactly correct from my point of view -- but not, from my point of view, complete. The request for a thread vote was compared to a lynching. Ugly thing, that, and incorrect IMO, but I see no racist connotations in the lynching statement. From my point of view the vote result represents the delivered consensus opinion of those on the thread who care enough to make a statement that Doug should "Get out of Town" for a while. It's not like he was cast into the wilderness. There are plenty of AMD forums around and he is free to start another. Now, on to the next topics. One week, two weeks, three strikes you're out. Excessively harsh. Should be One week plus one year probation, two weeks plus two years probation, three strikes you're out. Or something like that. Volume of posts: I think there should be an objective stated maximum number of posts which should be exceeded, on the Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) forum at ones peril even if the posts are well founded and insightful; with, perhaps, discounting of posts directly relating to ongoing news such as Conference Calls, etc. A number like 15 has been proposed and seems reasonable with a warning, by any thread participant, IMMEDIATELY before any action is taken. I don't think I like the one week and one year rule for that, though. More like one week and one week should be sufficient. -tgp

To: Rink who wrote (34)	7/13/2006 10:46:56 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1141

Not that I mind my vote being public, but I wonder if some people do. Was the vote stated as being public before hand? Anyone have any opinion about whether the votes should be public?

To: Rink who wrote (34)	7/13/2006 11:12:42 AM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1141

What a joke. I won't post on the "moderated" thread again. You allowed Troll Bully Supreme to call for a vote based on my non-violating responses to a whole gang of cheerleading bullies, who wanted to shoot the messenger when their pocketbooks were feeling the pinch. And then you give troll bully supreme less than the 1 month he so richly deserves. He spits in your face here, laughing at how easily he conned you, when he did it all on purpose: investorshub.com As I told Doug already I DON'T CARE and I said at the time I would do it again to stop Doug and I have and I did ;-). Is that clear enough for you, you trouble making and stirring TROLL ! ------ In fact he screams "troll" at many posters on many boards, all the time, as a brief perusal will show. You've been had. ------------ Picked up a mess of VNLADs just now. Intel 2009 $20 call leaps.