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 : Winstar Comm. (WCII) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steven Bowen who wrote (4778)	3/28/1998 11:40:00 AM
From: SteveG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12468

Hi Steven- As usual, you present a well-reasoned post. Thanks. I do have some comments though: <..just like not yelling "FIRE" in a movie theater,...> Of course, I agree in principle with this, but I see NO parallel with this to posting on SI. Yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theatre can endanger life. What could be posted on SI that could endanger life? Maybe a more compelling and modernized version of "War of the Worlds" <g>? <..there are limits to your freedom in every aspect of your life,I think there needs to be here, too...> I agree. The criteria I posted seem (to me) to be a reasonable minimum of expectation that arguably do not compromise freedom of speech nearly as much as they enforce a base standard. Of course, posting anything illegal (criminally or civilly) goes without saying. This would include posting knowingly blatant incorrect information on a company while attempting to make a profit on the misinformation (difficult to prosecute). <..Courts have said you have to be responsible for what you post though...> Beyond the above responsibility for ILLEGAL activity (and only if it is successfully prosecuted), (fortunately or unfortunately) there is no general standard for "responsible". <..I bet if I walked into your office building yelling obcenities, calling you names, cutting you down, and shouting lies, security would show me to the front door in a hurry, or worse...> If I am TRESSPASSING your PRIVATE PROPERTY. I could stand out front and carry my picket signs though. On the net, it gets FAR more obscure, as what does "tresspassing" (especially in a commercial "open" forum) or "disturbing your INTERNET peace mean"? No clear standard. Perhaps someday their WILL be, but it would likely have to pass muster with first amendment protections. [Read some of (NJ supreme court and noted 1st amendment jurist) Judge Adams' regarded opinions.] <..This is Jeff, Brad, and Jills' site so it's up to them what they will tolerate here. They have terms of use that we've all agreed to abide by to be able to frequent their site...> I agree that we need to abide by agreed upon rules. This is certainly where the fine line is applied. Still, this is a commercial board, and arbitrary discrimination resulting in the infringement of first amendment is a concern We ALSO wouldn't want to compromise the value of this board by OVERstrict enforcement of the rules. <..I think Jill has handled Jim well...> With 20+K posts a day, I don't think Jill has a clue to who Jim is. Jill just knows a number of people keep emailing her complaining, and she responds. I myself have emailed Jill to remove a racially offensive post on another thread, and was glad that she removed it. But I disagree with her IMO not well considered (who could blame her?) removal of Fink's post in question, particularly in light of the VERY active SI thread (simply TITLED, let alone what's probably posted there) "Did Slick Boink Monica". <..The Monica post was cute (to me anyway)...> So we agree on specific incidences of his posts and free speech. <..and I doubt it offended Barbara at all..> I don't know what Fink possibly has against Barbara, certainly NOTHING that WE would know, and likely just another opportunity for Fink to get a rise out of some by acting like a pathetic ass. I ALSO wouldn't want to speak for Barbara, but my gut is she knows (and knows that WE all know) that Fink clearly is emotionally disturbed, and just shrugs it off (If by chance you previously DIDN'T know we all think this Barbara, and ALSO that we appreciate your presence here, please know it now <g>). <...but noone thought anything less of Paul...> Without a doubt. <..I don't care if he wants to say we're getting married. Heck, we should tell him about our kid...> Now I draw the line there! Callously playing with the mind of an obviously disturbed soul goes TOO far, IMO. <..So posting lies on SI aren't just wrong, it's illegal..> Actually, someone can post LIES all they want (though I wish they wouldn't). What they CAN'T do is break the law (such as threats of violence, attempts at profiting by promoting disinformation or (civilly) the clear and intended defamation of character) <..This site could become worthless if you couldn't trust info that was posted here..> Anyone who "trusts" information posted on any public forum (UNLESS verified by OFFICERS of a company) IMO deserve the lessons they learn. And I will respond to clearly false facts or to contrary opinions. But I agree, hyping (positively or negatively) stocks with blatant disinformation is reprehensible. It's generally difficult to prosecute a statement of knowingly false fact, and more difficult still to distinguish some of this from satire, however poorly conceived. <..SI ought to be able to offer a post filter that imposes on nobodies freedom of speech. If I want to click a box that says "Do not show me posts made by Jim Fink" and another box that says "Do not show me responses made to Jim Fink", I don't see anything wrong with that...> I agree 100%. Hence my statement that I'm glad they DIDN'T have one, because I would be USING it on Fink related posts and would've missed your classic comeback. <..One inparticular is Ric D. You could learn ten times as much from him about the company, technology, and competition as you can from the rest of us combined. When Ric and others like him quit posting because of all the trash, we all lose...> What can we do to get these folks back? I posted Ric a question that he wasn't able to respond to. Other than the occasional joke, I don't think I've posted trash. Maybe he's just busy elsewhere. In any case, noise is a part of it all. I would NOT want an overly regulated SI. However, I HAVE considered starting a majordomo maillist for a few of us who are more involved in WinStar to discuss and share in greater and freer detail what we may think. Public forums DO have their limitations, including "noise". Think of it as a characteristic of the channel. Though I wouldn't want to trade bandwidth for a "perception" of higher SNR. <..So that seems like a weak argument to me...> I think we essentially agree in spirit and in specific cases. I'm perhaps a little more guarded on the "free" side of public speaking. Thanks for the discussion. Have a great day! Steve

To: Steven Bowen who wrote (4778)	3/30/1998 9:52:00 AM
From: gauguin	Respond to of 12468

I'll weigh in here...I don't mind Monica posts, etc., but what gripes me is that in the real world when someone is insulting me and making profane remarks I can personally tell them to get lost and I can and do avoid them. Here, there's nothing I can do but continue to receive his bullsh_t endlessly. Sure, I no longer respond, because that's what he wants, but the rest of you do and give him his kicks in the process. If he really behaves this way in everyday life, it's no wonder he's on the board so much--you're his only friends!! Barbara