To: I Am John Galt who wrote (50062 ) 7/24/1998 6:13:00 AM From: Mad_Mouse Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 55532
Hiya TD. I understand the post wouldn't take up much space, but that's not the point. SI has a rule against spamming. Everyone thinks that this means one person is posting the same message over and over. If this definition is used, what would stop a group of people from posting the same message? See, there's ways around that simple definition. From what I understand, the 5 remaining posts were by the original poster. All others, including his excess spam, were deleted. It wouldn't make sense to keep the copies that others made instead of his. This explains why some of the posts were chosen for deletion. Spamming is the reason he got suspended, not the content. Just ask Roo or anyone else who has been suspended for spamming. A spam is a spam is a spam. And everyone knows that if you give someone an inch, they'll more than likely take a mile. Plus, others will see this and also take a mile. Soon we'll get hit with 1000's of spam that will take up a more and more memory. Just look at all the e-mail spam out there. But even if it barely put a dent in the memory, does everyone really want to have to sort through all that spam to find useful information. It's hard enough to do that as it is. Besides, that kind of thinking ("it doesn't take up much space") leads to inefficiency eventually. Everything becomes insignificant and nothing is taken seriously until there's a definite problem. Think about it. For example: Mork and the other shorts were thinking that a few investors buying a few thousand shares was insignificant. What's a few thousand shares when they could short several hundreds of thousand shares? OOPS!!! What seems small today could become huge tomorrow. Anyways, SI has the anti-spamming rule for a reason. They want to avoid an even bigger problem in the future than just a few pissed off members. I'm not saying that people's anger doesn't mean anything, but people will be people and they'll find something to get angry about. It would be foolish for SI to give in to everyone who throws a fit. We think it's chaotic now, but it would be absolute anarchy if SI was to be so foolish. Anyways, after defending SI, I will now use the same argument to attack the neutral stance that SI has with blatant bashers. In other words, what seems small today could become huge tomorrow. SI thinks that it only has the common cold, but these bashers are a deadly virus that could ultimately kill the host. At the moment, these bashers and all these thread battles are generating interest, and judging from the OVIS/RMIL threads, a lot of new members were created because of this. So the reason for the tolerance seems to be membership growth (and the revenue that comes from it). SI, after all, is a business (just like The Jerry Springer Show). Perhaps, when there's a negative impact on the bottom line, then SI will take a different stance. Damn, I didn't mean to ramble on so much. So much for being as quiet as a mouse. <g>. A few more thoughts before I go to sleep. I agree with the post by Rich1 that uses the classroom as an example. That was an excellent post. I forgot what my other thoughts were. Doh! Hehe.