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.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (52520)	10/29/2006 3:24:42 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 90947

"Was that justified, or not?" When most of us joined SI it was contracted that members could post one to another provided they complied with the virtual community regulations--also know as "terms of use". Segregation or censorship out of sheer prejudice was neither sanctioned nor contemplated. As time went by certain radicals implored Admin. to allow them to enact their personal prejudices against members whom were not in violation of any of the terms of use. Why Admin. agreed to allow these radicals to exercise a personal prejudice against members is a question that I have no answer to. One of the Baboons of Ban suggested that people had a right to gated communities on SI. I don't follow this logic because gated communities are a privilege bought with money--and the virtual land of SI was already paid for and contracted by members. So the question for me is not one of justification. The entire process caters to prejudice and caprice--and is quite outside of reason. The question for me is whether your banning was idiotic and ignorant. The answer is a loud YES. The whole idea that grown men and women (and apparently sophisticated) should be banning one another smacks of puerile infantilism. It is quite a bad smell, really...

To: Cogito who wrote (52520)	10/29/2006 6:49:43 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

You're running together too many concepts. There is a difference between the issues surrounding revelation of the names, etc. of posters to goverment and whether posters are allowed to post on given boards and any restrictions placed on their speech, etc. I haven't the time nor inclination to explain it to you, particularly since you keep moving the conversation to irrelevant hypotheticals designed to obfuscate the original topic. I've already made clear my position with respect to the DU posters. I also find your musings over the mental processes of those posters to be hilarious. You infer that those who made the threats were nefarious interlopers while those who voiced disdain were righteously indignant over the subterfuge. So where's the shades of gray?<g> Seems like you need to get your personal biases in order before you start generalizing about the comments of others.