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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JMD who wrote (5844)	11/29/1997 7:14:00 PM
From: Duane L. Olson	Respond to of 152472

Mike, Tell me what you think of the following proposed rules: 1. Free Speech should be maximized. Any legal speech is permitted, so long as affected members are freely engaged in a mutual discussion. No views should be barred from any thread, so long as they do not violate rules 2 and 3. 2. Comments attacking an individual rather than an issue or viewpoint are not tolerated. 3.. An SI member has the right not to be contacted by anyone to/about whom they are not posting and by whom they have requested not to be contacted. Thanks for your views.. dlo P.S. Did you understand my objection to the "abuser" being not so much what he said, but that he attacked PERSONS, rather than VIEWPOINTS, and that he repeatedly did so despite being (politely) requested not to make further contact? In other words, "Post away, fool, but don't clutter up my Message Manager" to fling your venom" P.P.S. Hope you don't mind that I will consider your next, thoughtful post on the issues more significant than this first shot <g>.. dlo

To: JMD who wrote (5844)	11/29/1997 7:23:00 PM
From: Duane L. Olson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Mike, In case it didn't come across, I support all that I understand you were saying by incorporating the term "any legal speech is permitted" in the first statement of the "Proposed Standards" --- But I think most of us would take that as "a given"...It is stated merely for re-emphasis... and BTW, SI Management has essentially stated the same thing... OK.. enuf... thanks again for taking the time to respond.. and I hope I've clarified the question sufficiently to stimulate further, more specific inputs.. dlo "The Saintly One"

To: JMD who wrote (5844)	12/1/1997 3:24:00 PM
From: bananawind	Respond to of 152472

Mike...OT...OT...OT Re your suggestion that we be allowed to vote on the occasional offensive poster... Isn't the whole point of free speech in a democratic society to protect the individual from being trampled by the majority? Unless some overwhelming danger is presented by an individual's speech, I don't see the case for supressing it, 2/3 majority (or whatever) or not. Chuckleheads like the little boy on TLAB or Duane's thorn are within their rights so long as they adhere to SI's terms of use, much as I may wish they'd p*ss-off. Just my 2 cents. -JLF