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.

SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Legacy Interface Discussion (2004-2011) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (4831)	9/24/2006 7:17:04 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6035

Allowing thread hosts to ban has one purpose, Laz--AND ONLY ONE PURPOSE. It allows the thread host to exercise a personal and capricious prejudice against members of the virtual community whom are legally posting in accordance with the rules and regulations of the community--to wit, following SI's terms of use. SI Admin obviously did not relinquish their authority to apply TOU through virtue of allowing people to exercise a personal despotism. The "argument" of the "tin pot dictators" as you have aptly termed them is that they WANT to be allowed to be dictators and to have special suburbs where the elite may visit while excluding those whom the thread host dislikes (regardless of how many others on the thread wish to dialogue with that party). Quite an "argument"! Now, one COULD ignore the discrimination and segregation inherent in such a capricious authority. One COULD say, "well...one can start unlimited threads on SI on topic wabunga". Fine. But that fragments all the various posters whom wish to dialogue between myriad threads ("I can discuss that with YOU here but not him, but I can discuss it with Tammy there but not you and blah blah blah"). And the problem with one ignoring the capricious discrimination and segregation is that one WOULD be ignoring it. Some of us believe that SI should be a community of equals where people may only be muzzled for violating the rules of the community--not for having a different opinion or for being a different color than whichever tin pot dictator is on a drunk or having a pissy moment. The world labors for centuries to create PRINCIPLES of human rights where people may drink at the same fountain and we have self important people asking for "gated communities". Do you get it? So people can effectively be segregated off of Si threads by various groups of partisan zealots even though they are supposedly entitled to equal membership privileges WITHIN THE TERMS OF USE. Do you get it? You and I and 20 others could go PM and "arrange" to segregate those we dislike so that they have virtually no place to offer the legitimate and lawful opinions for the purpose of which they contracted a membership. Many of us believe that pampering to such atavistic prejudice and segregation is just plain insulting to human beings and just manifestly wrong.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (4831)	9/24/2006 10:18:44 PM
From: Done, gone.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6035

5 recommendations, including mine. Hope that counts for something. Likely not.