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 : and there was no one left to speak for me -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: INFO_DART who wrote (214)	9/27/1998 9:50:00 PM
From: Yorikke	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 276

INFO_DART, This is a very interesting thread in the posts that deal with the header concept. It's a topic that has interested me for some time. But for me its not about individual cases, its about the philosophy of living in the media. I body surf when I get the chance. I can dig surf up to about 5 to 6 feet and then I know if I go in I'd probably die. I watch the sets a lot before I go in when the waves are breaking 3 to 5. And when I hit the water I say a prayer and accept that I just might be walking to my own demise. I go down to Panic's and watch the Moke's do the heavy sets and I'm impressed. Dudes my age doin drops, and twirls, and takin the bowl like birds in flight. It's beautiful, I can appreciate it, but man I don't want to try it. I've done a few at panic's and I have a good understanding of the meaning of the name. Anybody goes in there is a fool who don't know what he is doing. SI is not for faint at heart. People have a lot of money invested in the topics on most of these threads. One person's truth is another's lie. When people lose sight of the distinction between reality and dreams they act with aberrant behavior. Just because there are lots of whacked-out souls wandering these threads does not make what they say any less dysfunctional. A person can seek agreement while carrying a weapon. I have sought peace through many means on these threads. I've also turned around and written someone silent. But they were intelligent enough to understand; the stupid ones never know. That's why I speak of polite behavior being only an ethic at the moment. But I will generally apologize to an someone. 9 times out of 10 I have a good reason to do so. People become so much more reasonable when they realize there is no dispute; and the point of apology generally has nothing to due with the point of discussion. Its so much more difficult to turn people around then it is to keep banging away at each other. And isn't that a lot of the fun of communication? Picture a world where we venture into SI as three dimensional beings of our own construct. Enter forums that resemble meeting rooms. Where we can see the others who have participated, who may be participating, and reactions can be real time, or some construct of that. Verbal abuse can be answered with a challenge. The involved parties can repair to the Lawn where they can battle it out with weapons of choice. The loser forfeiting presence on the site for some agreed time. Maybe we'll just have an SI police force to drag the outrageous away. I don't particularly support such drivel. But the technology for such an interactive state is not that far away. The point I am getting at here is that we are always fighting to have our say. We are an aggressive race and subject to both verbal and physical violence. It is the norm for people to have to fight to have themselves heard. But this is not being denied the right to speak. This is not an authoritarian limitation of freedom. Its who we are. I feel that when things get out of hand, when people are shouted down by groups of 'thugs' or just a misguided mob, or devout group of believers, it's right to come in and defend the person's right to speak. At the same time I don't believe in standing up for every meek soul who can not formulate a defense of his own opinions and face off with others who aggressively question his beliefs. Due you own Due Diligence is the motto of the mining threads. No one should be singled out. No one sacrificed for the good of the whole. No example should be made. If we do so who is speaking for that person? Nobody on these threads has committed more than the crimes of arrogance and stupidity. There have been no deaths, no maimings, no forced marches. Who is to say what truth should prevail, what concepts will endure, whose message rings the clearest? There is a world of difference between standing up for someone and dragging the culprit of some 'shout down' out into the square and 'shooting him in the head'. I am not willing to participate in a discussion on this tread that targets specific SI individuals or posts for criticism. It's wrong; no matter how gallant the goal. regards, mnmuench