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 : WARNING- have you been warned by SI? Let's talk -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (228)	3/8/1998 4:48:00 PM
From: Intrepid1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1614

How about a group of us volunteer to be the Guardian Angels of Silicon Investor. We can take turns patrolling the threads and use non-violent intervention when we see an ugly situation breaking out. Even better we can all have our own Red Berets with the letters S.I.A emblazoned on the front. curtis purething - founder of the Silicon Investor Angels. S.I.A.

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (228)	3/8/1998 6:41:00 PM
From: username	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1614

Bill, I was a tongue-in-cheek when I posted my reply. The Boink thread was started to get a couple of people off the ASND thread that seemed more interested in Slick than in ASND; therefore I could not in all honesty try to "police" the thread. Seems to me that we have the classic situation that has faced groups of people for at least 4000 years on this planet: how to let the good people communicate and keep the bad ones from screwing it up for everyone else. Not an easy assignment. (Yes, I think there are bad people in the world, no, I am not pointing a finger at anyone in particular.) Personally, I don't have much of a problem dealing with those who obviously intend to disrupt the normal flow of information. I don't want to get into a dissertation on the matter. In the "normal" course of events, (and I'm talking about the "non-stock" threads), tempers are bound to flare. My yardstick is pretty simple. I look to see if there is a conscious effort to make the other person feel worse. Usually it takes two to tango; but I make an effort to be civil even if I'm intending to make a very "solid" point to someone. I guess another way to say it is that I would personally take notice if someone told me that I was offensive in some way, as opposed to the point of view that I did not care one whit for the other person's point of view, and was just going to flame them no matter what it took. If I don't care at all for the other person's point of view, then I just end off on the conversation. I don't think I'm any different than 97% of the people on any thread. That said, I will be the first to admit that I've engaged in satire. My intention is merely to lighten things up a bit when I feel like it. I've never received a post that took issue with my satire, but if I did, I would give it consideration. It is unfortunate that we are considering policing a thread due to the actions of a tiny minority. I don't think it's necessary. I firmly believe that it's much easier to ignore the offensive party, and in addition, I see no reason not to spoof same. But the mean stuff is where I would draw the line, and the mean stuff is very easy to spot. I look at it like this: these people are in my home, and if I don't want someone in my home, then away they go, I just ignore them. Do I pick sides? Absolutely! Can I pick someone's scabs and get away with it (even for a friend)? Sure! Do I need to jump in the water hole with the rest of the piranha and get into a feeding frenzy? Nope, been there, done that. I didn't pay money to SI to listen to psychotic behavior, so I'm up for some sort of handle for the BS, but I can't offer anything more specific. Leaving it up to Jill is not the best solution, because we ought to do it ourselves.