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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (20258)	4/12/1998 5:58:00 PM
From: Lady Lurksalot	Respond to of 108807

, I was just about to post to you. Thanks to Purething, I finally found the Circulation area on an American Heart Association webpage. The only thing I found were indices to articles and their authors in several past issues of "Circulation." Nothing was clickable. So, if you still want me to look at something there, please post a URL to sam, and I shall be happy to do so. Holly

To: epicure who wrote (20258)	4/12/1998 7:33:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Yes, X, it was the one where Jim said I should have sex with a German shepherd that I found really objectionable. I think there was some confusion about that which led to a general misunderstanding at SI, and since the subject has resurfaced, I would like to explain it. When I emailed Jill to ask that the dog sex one be removed, I mentioned some of Jim's other posts on background to show her that this was a continuing problem that I had been unable to resolve on my own, and that I was not just being a hysterical ninny. The one I remember including in the email was one at Ask John Galt where Jim was saying thousands of people would be happy when I left here. She wrote me back and said she had removed the post, but when I was reading Galt a couple of weeks later I noticed the really offensive one about the dog was still there. So I wrote her back, saying there had been an obvious misunderstanding--that it was particularly the dog post which bothered me--and then she removed the post I originally was really upset by. At that point I think it looked like I was continually whining, asking posts to be removed willy nilly, but it was Jill's mistakenly removing a less offensive post that started a really big misunderstanding. I think I probably seemed very oversensitive and paranoid at that point, but the facts were more complex. One of the things I realized as the result of all this unpleasantness is that it is all very petty, and ignoring posts that are offensive is a better way to resolve problems. However, I am still concerned about how SI should handle real troublemakers and consistent bullies. Does anyone know if decisions have been made on this issue?