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 Message Filtering - Pros and Cons -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Brad who wrote (67)	2/11/1998 11:10:00 PM
From: loafy loaf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 263

Brad, The note from Jim H refers to one person as being the problem in the Fonar thread, and everyone there knows whom he's blaming. The note is an attack on her. The same fellow posted notes in this thread alluding to her in a perjorative way. You posted that you had suspended both sides, but you left some of one side to continue to post negative remarks about one person, and you've set it so she can't respond. In my view, she has been attacked constantly in that one thread, and I believe that the offending posts belong to her attackers. Since Jim H has been reading this thread and the Fonar thread, his post in the Fonar thread is simply an excuse to knock one person. You posted only yesterday in that thread that you'd suspended people for engaging in just such behavior, so I'd suggest it would be consistent that Jim be suspended for breaking the same rule. I submit that ideas should be attackable but not people. I think that's a fairly clear concept and that he broke that rule by his post. He was calling names. My own post addressed what he did in that post, and did not personally attack him, nor call him names. Do you agree with that distinction? LOAF

To: SI Brad who wrote (67)	2/12/1998 2:25:00 AM
From: Zeuspaul	Respond to of 263

>>How are you suggesting that we easily identify, appropriately reprimand, and consistently deal with << I agree that this would be a very difficult task. It is only possible if one is a regular reader of a thread IMO. Even then there will be opposing views as to the "guilty" poster. Many times the heckler carefully baits until the target poster loses his/her cool and says something they shouldn't. This may take place over several months. A carefully worded email to Jill with the offending post and the "shrewd" heckler has another notch in his saddle. Regards Zeuspaul

To: SI Brad who wrote (67)	2/13/1998 2:51:00 PM
From: Linda Kaplan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 263

Brad, As for Kill Keys, I like them as long as they're optional. Individuals can censor for themselves and not for others. I would like safeguards against threads being riddled with notes asking to ignore a member. People should be able to figure out whom they want to ignore on their own. without cluttering up the threads with constant posts about who should be ignored. I don't use Kill Keys, since I prefer to skim things I don't want to read, and I would like to maintain a sense of continuity. But that should be a personal choice. If some don't care for continuity and are keen on censorship, then they can perform their own acts of censorship. Like on Prodigy, it seems to me that the matter of who is ignored by how many shouldn't be "counted up." Who cares? The point of SI is to discuss stocks. If people need to compete about how many times their profiles are bookmarked or how often their posts are ignored, let them go to a self-esteem site, not a stock site. Linda