Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Quick question that I'd like to get some feedback on.
What does everyone think of giving selected people access to the "roast spammer" button?
I haven't thought this all the way through yet, so I'm just thinking out loud here, but what I'm thinking is that I select certain existing chairperson and directors (who've demonstrated exemplary judgment) and enable them to temporarily halt a spammer's ability to post messages. Abusing it would be a Terms of Use violation. I could make it only usable on accounts that were created less than 24 hours ago and whose post volume falls within a certain range (say, 3 to 10).
The idea being that if someone sees a spammer, they can put a stop to their activity pending my review, rather than just deleting the post in their thread and hoping I see their message about the spammer sometime soon.
As a corollary countermeasure, we could impose a posting volume restriction on new accounts. Say no more than 10 posts in their first hour.
Thoughts?
chronic stubborness maybe
Probably. I'm not absolutely inflexible, though. I do change my mind from time to time and reverse earlier admin decisions.
However, "stubborness" could also be "not wishy-washy". I don't go "Yeah, you're right and I'm wrong" everytime I'm challenged.
Being at least somewhat stubborn is a job requirement.
I also agree that posters did stalk you over to the iftp thread, and bob should have stopped it.
Had I known about it (that's kind of a prerequisite), and if it were harassment, I would've stopped it. If they followed him and posted on-topic about his stock, then no problem. My definition of "stalking" includes harassment. So if someone follows you to the thread of your favorite stock and posts there, it's not stalking, even if they reason they're there is that you post there. That's the whole idea of why profiles show where you're posting.
I don't know that I want to post on this thread that much, because to me this is just a slick way to ignore people's views.
Nope.
The other thread was where people were able to have a one to one with bob,
The only reason for wanting to keep it on the other thread that I can think of is if destruction is the motive. I was getting hobbled in my job duties by what was happening there, and the usefulness of that thread was being utterly destroyed.
If the members cannot post on the thread where bob hangs out
Replace "post" with "be destructive" and you've got a more accurate portrayal of what was happening.
what purpose does it serve to voice concerns about him here other than to make people THINK (pretend) they are doing something about it all?
Your comment about hippies wanting to change the world works both ways. It's no less valid to post to this thread about the issues people have with me. Filling up the Q&A thread with it is only destructive. It's the hippies barging into your pad, smoking all your stash, and pouring out your lava lamps onto your beanbags.
But if some other site is actually *better* because I'm not at it and we can click as we please, I'd think that some of the folks who really want to effect change would vote with their clicks; not just destroy what they have a problem with.
Look at the overall actions of both "sides". The majority of the people who are on record as despising me or having a problem with me (all 4 or 5 of you) use the tactics like posting enormous volumes to give the appearance of it being a majority issue, post destructively, make all kinds of accusations that have no basis in fact, though they're presented as fact, and never acknowledge when their "facts" get shot down. They just move on to the next "fact", and add to their total without subtracting where appropriate.
Have you seen the "other side" do this?
I haven't.
is it my imagination or do they seem to want to get rid of all the people that were here before they and bob came
I can't speak for others but it's really irrelevant who anyone else wants to "get rid of". Who I want to get rid of would be relevant, and I don't want to get rid of the people who were here before me. I've met some terribly cool people here who I'd never met before and I hope they stay. I'm not biased against people for having been here before me.
But there are people who I want to either get into a way of thinking that won't doom the site to the continued lack of traction it had before or get rid of them if that's not possible. I'll make no bones about that.
The ones I am most interested in "converting" or "showing the door" first are actually a far smaller number than people elsewhere seem to think: Those who want to use the CoB feature to control the positive/negative ratio of discussions on stocks. If those people are allowed to continue doing that, this place will never be of any consequence at all. To me, that's the highest priority issue for me to deal with. It's not a particularly tough one, though, as I've found that better than 95% of the folks with access to the delete button are not abusing it. Nothing less than 100% is acceptable, though. If even one person squelches opinions contrary to their financial position in a stock, the site as a whole has zero credibility.
Second on my list are those who author huge volumes of posts but never discuss specific stocks or the market as a whole. This'll never have a chance of being even a noteworthy stock discussion site if too many people use it as nothing more than a generic chat site.
I have zero problem with general banter or specific chat about non-market things, even if there's a lot of it, as long as it's being done by people who also post about stocks and are here because it's a stock discussion site. The market needs to be our main common ground if this site is to be more than an eventual historical footnote. That's my opinion anyway. And I got the job because of my vision for what the site can be and it's my responsibility to help make it what we all know it can be.
I wouldn't be here if I thought an acceptable goal were for InvestorsHub to be the best and busiest overall chat site. My goal here is for us to be the best stock discussion site. For now, let others work at being the best overall or the best in other areas of special interest.
Third on my list are spammers, but as long as we can thwart them pretty quickly, they're not a problem.
post #1 of this 6-hour period and I'm back to work for a while. Later...
Admin Bob has been on iHub for some months now
Correction: About 1 month
he is already not welcome by a large portion of the posters
Depends on how you define "large portion". I'm not sure of the exact number of truly active accounts here, but roughly half a percent of the accounts here (including dupes) have expressed that sentiment. About 3% have expressed the opposite sentiment directly and the rest haven't weighed in on the subject. They're busy talking about other things like stocks and such. I'd guess that a "large portion" of them have never heard of me and never will.
While I'm throwing numbers around, posting volume here tripled (from 500 per day to 1500 per day) the day I was hired and has remained in the 1000-1500 range since. So soon into the game and we occasionally have 1/3rd the traffic of the premier stock message board. I consider that a very meaningful statistic.
My point on this one is that your "large portion" is by no means the majority.
Bob has renamed people's alias for dumb reasons
Not sure what "dumb reasons" you're talking about, so that's really an empty statement as it stands. It may or may not be true, but I think you need to clarify.
deleted posts that should have been left up because they were just opinions
No, I don't do that. Can you give an example? You've done that. I don't do it and I don't condone it.
he has left posts up that were supposed to be deleted
I also don't do that. Can you give an example? And state why it should be deleted?
he allows STALKING on iHub (i have been stalked by members and bob does nothing about it),
I don't recall you telling me about that. But you could argue that I allow it, depending on how you define it. If you define it the way I do, I don't allow it. How do you define it?
he has been VERY rude to ANYONE who criticizes him
Maybe. I'm not your average nicey-nicey customer support kinda person and never will be. Some people would include "rude" when listing my traits and I wouldn't disagree.
However, I try not to be rude unless someone's rude to me. I usually deal with people in much the same way they deal with me.
He has driven away members,
Probably true. I don't know it for a fact, but I'm sure some left. Far more joined though.
And depending on who I've "driven away", that's not necessarily a bad thing.
is trying to create another cesspool like SI.
Ummmm.... That "cesspool" you refer to absolutely smokes anything out there in terms of quality and sure smokes us in terms of volume. There are isolated cesspool areas there, but to label the whole place a cesspool is to ignore its very long history and the fact that some of the brightest financial minds I've ever seen still call the place "home".
What I'm trying to create is something that is nearly as good as SI was when it was at its best. If it can be even *better*, excellent. We're a long way off. Actually, we're a long way from holding a candle to what it is even now, but we're getting there.
To sit here and call SI a "cesspool" is kinda like passing an older Cadillac with some dings on it and enough smoke coming out of the exhaust to indicate the engine's not long for this world, and stopping to holler "What a POS!" at it before returning to pushing your Vega to the dealership where you hope to trade it in on a Cadillac.
I will not stand for it Bob.
Freedom of choice is such a cool thing.
I want you to leave iHub.
Okay.
I understand you want me to. But I'm not planning to do it and as far as I can tell, nobody's planning to fire me.
I will not be censored by someone with poor judgement and lack of respect towards others.
"poor judgment" is really an opinion. It's not fact. A strong case can be made for my having "great judgment".
And I give respect where respect is given and earned.
<g> = <grinning>
<ggg> = <really grinning a lot, I think>
Be glad if you didn't already know it. It's Geek-speak.
You know, I'm going to be really mad at marcos if I put in the necessary time to do the research and find out that GMT is a 6-hour difference. <g>
Very good point.
For others, I'd suggest warning along with the deletions, then escalating it to me if the warnings aren't heeded.
For my own part, I have two very deeply-ingrained habits working against me: A tendency to give people a lot of last chances, and a tendency to allow a lot more to be directed at myself than I'd allow to be directed at others.
I'm working on both.
And I need to do better because as someone else pointed out, when I am very tolerant of it directed at me, I give the impression that I'm just tolerant of it in general.
The fact of the matter is if the site against which the "crime" was committed didn't press charges, what you think of how the site felt about it is completely irrelevant.
Now, don't make me ask again. Take it to the other thread. If you're unable to because you're not capable of any of the requisite stock-specific discussion anywhere, then I'm not sure why I should care what you think of this stock message board and its administration. We're here first and foremost to talk stocks.
That's enough, marty. Take it to the BADBOB thread, and remember to comply with the <10% stock content requirement.
Actually, we welcomed hack attempts and some folks like me were actively encouraged to try to break things. A lot of old-timers knew this. We really flailed on the PM system before it was rolled out. And a lot of bugs that were found on the site were purposely left in there as a kind of reward to the people who found them, as long as they didn't blab about it everywhere. Like the forums few people knew how to get to.
If we didn't have a problem with people trying to break the site for us (everything was logged so Brad could more easily figure out the rare successful attempt), I'm not really sure why you should have a problem with it.
For the record, I'm not going to encourage hack attempts right now, but I certainly will when I'm the one banging out the code. Most programmers can't easily break what they wrote.
Note that by "hack attempts", I'm not referring to anything that takes a site down or compromises the security of the private data on it.
I'm talking about finding creative ways to use the site that the programmers didn't anticipate and prevent. The use of graphics in messages here is a good example.
Actually, I once got an email from Brad long before he hired me asking me to stop trying to hack the site. Really startled me.
Someone was claiming that it was possible to edit a post you didn't author and since I've got this Missourian thing going, I didn't take them at their word. I'm stubborn like that.
I spent about an hour trying to find any way I could to do what this guy was claiming was possible, and just couldn't do it.
Brad later fessed up that he was yanking my chain about the hacking thing and had seen the exchange and was watching to see if I'd figure out a way to do it. Most of us programmers like other programmers to try to break our code. Hmmm... That might explain why some of my former co-workers *didn't* care too much for Mr. Stockwell's efforts.
Not one post to another thread per post here. One post per six-hour period in which a post here is made.
In this way, I'm hoping that people will at least make a token acknowledgement of the fact that this is a stock discussion site.
Ummmm.... We'll call that half the stock-specific requirement. It's supposed to be in a thread in which it's on-topic.
However, I'm no Piffer and only a seat-of-the-pants chartist, but oh my! Had never thought to look at any dotcoms.
what's next, trial by dingbat?
Now THAT is an arcane joke. And I bet no more than a few people know the reference.
post number 2
I like this precedent. In the interest of making it easier to police that rule, I'd appreciate it if everyone would voluntarily add the post-number for the 6-hour period and include a link to their requisite on-topic on-stock post into one of their 6-hour messages.
If that happened in the Parking Lot thread, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Anywhere else and I would. But then you get into the shades of gray when talking about what I'd do about it. If it was sudden and obviously unprovoked, I'm going to be a bit tougher about it with the one person. If it's an argument that was escalating on both sides and reached that point, I'd likely only warn both.
Actually, I'm not sure that that's functional yet.
To my knowledge, the only limitations we can put on accounts is very much an "on or off" thing. They can either log in or they can't.
When I'm able to (and can get to it), I will change the way that works. I will implement timed suspensions (like SI has), and terminations/suspensions for individual aspects, including public posts, chairman functions, thread creation, and PMs. In most cases, if someone is suspended, I still want them to be able to access PMs. And the jail board.
Bob
If Jack works all day, then Jacks a dull boy!
but
if Jack can have some fun while working, then what is Jack?
That's very much it. And I think it serves the community well to be very openly hostile to the really egregious spammers.
I prefer to use renames that somehow have something to do with the notion of "spam".
For example, check out the following poster, who initially had "BIGBROWNBEAR" as their alias: http://www.investorshub.com/beta/profile.asp?user=6381
Or this one, formerly known as "amber_rose_2001": http://www.investorshub.com/beta/profile.asp?user=6148
Or the one by Brad Dryer, who got me hooked on this game: http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/profile.gsp?id=4518770
Well, there are two reasons I rename them:
1. So that subsequent readers of their posts can see by their name that they're spammers.
2. It amuses me and others.
Item 1 is irrelevant here. On SI it was the best I could do since it would often take hours to delete all of a spammer's posts and the deletions could only happen at night, leaving the posts out there to potentially cause harm (and set precedent) all day.
A valid question is "Is the amusement factor a good enough reason to do it or is it a bad thing to do?"
I'm in favor of doing it, but I'm not dead-set on it. Someone raised a very valid criticism of it elsewhere, so I'd like to get as much input on this as possible.
I keep late hours and have always automatically woken up after 4 or 5 hours of sleep. PM me.
Yes, I do follow that one.
I usually work in this order:
1. Q&A thread.
2. Spam thread.
3. PM's.
4. Emails.
I'm finally almost done with step one and have been tackling a bit of steps 3 and 4.
Also, please offer an opinion in that thread about the suitability or acceptability of my renaming of particularly egregious spammers who'll never post here again.
Geez!
I'm really sorry about that! I got so wrapped up in this that I let that spammer go for way too long. I'll go catch up now.
To everyone else, the "Bob is a bad guy" topic has been beaten to death. And as someone else pointed out, it's completely destroyed the usefulness of this thread for new users. This simply cannot continue.
Let's all take it here: http://www.investorshub.com/beta/addBrdMrk.asp?board_id=617
From this point on, use the above thread for any commentary about whether or not I'm bad for this site. If you've got any kind of issues with me and they don't involve help with using the site, then they need to go to that thread.
Any other use of this thread will be considered a violation of the Terms of Use and will be dealt with accordingly.
Regards,
iHub Admin (Bob)
Wanted: 2 directors for this board. Must be willing to and capable of setting an example of how directorship of boards should work. PM me if you're interested. All inquiries seriously considered.
but the fact remains what I was told,
Not to belabor the obvious point, but what you've got there is hearsay. It's not proof of wrong-doing on my part.
Anyway, I'm tiring of this game and falling behind on other admin duties, so I'd best back off a bit. If you've got concrete evidence of wrong-doing on my part, though, I'm all ears.
IMo you should hve never taken any info with you.
The intimation there is that I grabbed a bunch of confidential information and kept it just before getting laid off.
In reality, the only way I could do my job, being remote, was to receive and send emails from my own computer.
I was not referring to the basher situation when I asked about the reinstatement by etahn caldwell.
My mistake. Thought you were. So, then, the revised answer to your earlier question about legal ever reversing a decision of mine is "No. None other than that one that I can recall." Not too long after that, they decided they much preferred to just let me do my job and back me up as needed.
Ummmm... I thought I already said that when I did that, it was probably wrong.
But here's why I did it.
At the time, account suspensions and terminations had zero effect until the person logged out and tried to log in again.
You were engaging in personal attacks and harassment and since you weren't logging out, my suspension was having no effect whatsoever. I hit upon a solution that I thought was very clever and when I saw that it worked, geek pride got the better of me. I was dying to tell someone how I'd gotten around that problem. I'm human.
I guess I don't understand how the mail box system works on this site. When I hit remove the message it goes to archived private messages.
Hey! An on-topic post! There's hope yet. <g>
Yes, when you remove a message, it goes to Archived Private Messages. I intend to change quite a bit of the PM functionality.
When I hit reset counter nothing happens.
It should take you back to the Inbox. All it does is recalculate the number of messages you have. If the number was already correct (it usually is nowadays), it will seem like nothing happened.
Is there no way to file some messages separate from others?
Not yet.
I find it hard to believe that you didn't know about it, since you were admin, and admin's office was the ones that "scolded" him.
If it was handled by another admin, I wouldn't have known about it. During the times we had more than one admin, we were far too swamped to send each other the details of everyting we were doing.
I'm still puzzled, though. Very few people should've been able to give such a "scolding". You don't remember who it was?
leave the conspiracy stuff out of the discussion, you don't want to go there. I would testify under oath in a court of law, if necessary, that I have been told by "outsiders" not an employee at si, that they could get people reinstated at si, all they have to do is talk to you. (at the time you were there).
If I told you I've got GW Bush in my back pocket, does that make it true? If a judge laughed at such a claim in his courtroom and he was deaf and you weren't paying attention, did his laugh sound more like a guffaw or a chortle?
There many were times that people presented compelling arguments for someone's (or their own) reinstatement and I went ahead and did it. But I "would testify under oath in a court of law" that nobody, not even insiders of the company, could get me to change my decisions unless they presented a pretty compelling argument. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY could just ask me to reinstate someone and it'd automatically happen. Same was true of suspensions.
what person are you talking about when you say that I said you didn't terminate someone. post the link so I can review
what I posted, please.
I didn't say that it was you.
bob, let's start here. why would you publically post that you terminated my other account?
Because you made it very much an issue in the current conversation when you claimed bias on my part for allowing people multiple accounts. It's relevant to point out that if there's bias along those lines, it's in favor of you. A person complaining of exactly that kind of bias. As so often happens.
Oops. Look over your shoulder a second. Is that another of your "3 examples" I see sailing out of the park?
bob john, I have given three examples, I think so far.
Could you restate those 3 examples? I'm quite certain I proved at least two of them to be very flawed and/or incorrect.
Bob did ethan caldwell gnet's attorney (at the time) ever reinstate or get reinstated anyone that you terminated?
Yep. And I learned a lesson from it.
Without getting into specifics that would violate anyone's privacy, here's the story:
There was a poster on the site who would jump from thread to thread and camp at each one for a short time, spending a few days bashing it mercilessly, then switching to touting it just as mercilessly. He had done it numerous times.
He had gotten suspended numerous times for harassment and personal attacks.
One of the times I was deleting personal attacks of his after having suspended him, I ran across a post of his I knew to be a lie, and deleted that post, and then found that he had been spamming some of our users via email, at which point I terminated his account.
He contacted our legal department and after a few email exchanges, I was told to reinstate his account.
Actually, I learned two lessons:
1. I shouldn't have deleted the post I knew was a lie. My doing so could've put my employer in a bad position and it's what drove home the point that I am not empowered to determine which posts are lies and which aren't.
2. I shouldn't have deleted my emails. At the time, I was in the habit of frequently purging old emails to save space on my hard drive. Since I'd recently purged my emails, I no longer had the evidence people had forwarded me of his having spammed them. Since I couldn't prove it to legal, I had to reinstate the account.
Actually, I went against that second lesson recently.
Someone quoted an excerpt of one of my emails out of context here and I asked permission to quote the complete passages from mine and his emails in rebuttal and that permission was denied, so I didn't do it. (Side note: that was done out of courtesy -- it's not a violation of the rules here to post the contents of an email as long as the contents themselves don't break the rules)
However, he contacted my previous employer and tried to get them to sue me for having those emails, so they called me and asked if I'd mind deleting them so he'd quit bugging them, so I went ahead and did so (I get along just fine with all of the legal staff there and it seemed a small enough favor and I had no further use for those emails). So I no longer have them and haven't for a while. Just hope I don't end up wishing I did.
Also, I should note that it wasn't too long after that incident that the legal staff at Go2Net told me they can't fathom how on earth I could do the job I did and further emails to them from users were usually just forwarded to me without comment. And later, at the beginning of a company-wide meeting, my boss made a presentation to me and said during it that he felt that of all the people at Silicon Investor and even Go2Net, mine was by far the most difficult and he commended me on doing it well.
Anyway, does that answer your question?
Bob
PS. The person involved in that Bob/User/Legal struggle was later terminated for using multiple accounts to bash stocks. There's a thread on SI petitioning for his removal, but it hasn't gotten any posts since 2/18/99.
IMO he had no choice but to create new accounts to be heard. the system is flawed in that people don't know when they are terminated until after it happens. then what are you supposed to do?
Well, it's flawed, but not in that way. The problem is that there's no difference between terminations and suspensions except that with suspensions, I keep a Notepad file here to remind me when to reinstate the account.
I usually email people to inform them of their suspensions or terminations, but can only guess that I didn't in this case.
However, when he came back on with the second account, I did tell him what the situation was and warned him that further use of that second account would result in termination of his accounts. I believe I told him that publicly, but I wouldn't swear to it. If need be, I'm sure I can find the link.
If someone disagrees with their suspension, they should take it up with me privately. Further violations (multiple accounts) especially after being warned not to, is definitely not the way to go.
Bob I didn't say he had a second account
The intimation was very clear. You were agreeing with someone else's assertion to that effect and citing it as further proof of just what a bad guy I am.
as far as the poster, here's the link.
I recognize one of those names.
If a person has an injunction against further violations of SEC rules, I'm not going to assume that they will violate the injunction and pre-punish them for it. That call is for the SEC to make; not me. Personally, I'm inclined to give people as much rope as they need.
But I remember that he was especially active in the RMIL thread. Is that a correct recollection? Is this why he's an issue here?
For those who don't know, the last thread in which I was most active on SI prior to being hired there was the RMIL thread, where I posted slightly negative commentary about the company (compared to others). What I did there was primarily point out flaws in the reasoning others were using to explain why it was such a great investment and take people to task for including personal attacks as support of their assertions. I don't recall the range in which it was trading, but am pretty sure that it hasn't traded for something like 3 1/2 years now. And a small group of people have hated me ever since.
bob josef had three accounts on si. why was he not terminated for that? you knew he had the three,
This is the first time I've ever heard that assertion.
I've never been psychic. Sorry.
Should I ask again whether this is a known fact or if it's a belief being presented as fact?
he posted he had the three.
Therefore I knew it? Do you have any idea how many public messages there are on SI and what a miniscule percentage of them I ever read?
did you suspend those people?
So, you stated as fact that I didn't, but you really don't know whether I did or not?
did you make public comments about them like you did about others?
That was probably not a good thing for me to have done when I terminated your previous account. Note that I haven't repeated it.
However, also note that I've allowed you to come back with a new account. Yeah, potentially a bad precedent, but for the most part you haven't made me regret it.
But I'm not willing to drop the other matter so quickly and easily, as it's a symptom of the problem I'm seeing: Why did you state as fact that someone wasn't suspended when you actually had no idea whether or not it was true?
So many (actually, the majority) of complaints about my "bias" have been based on exactly that. I hated having to watch a few folks rip my reputation to shreds on SI based on assertions that someone wasn't suspended when I knew full well that they had been, but would not discuss the matter with anyone but the suspendee. Same here.
Oftentimes, those same accusations complained about posts that people asserted should've resulted in suspension, but some people refused to note that the posts had been deleted and a person who was previously a very prolific poster suddenly wasn't posting anymore.
Heck, recently we had someone here claiming I was biased in favor of a person they were doing battle with on SI, and in the same post he said that that person hadn't posted in over a year, but the thought apparently never crossed their mind that maybe, just maybe, there was a *reason* that person suddenly quit posting.
But so many people tend not to apply Occam's Razor to such questions, especially if the simplest answer dosn't jibe with whatever conspiracy theory they favor at the time. Usually a conspiracy theory that elaborately explains why a stock is going down, while not blaming "Mr. Market" or "The Company".
I think bob and matt should figure out some way in private with you to make a truce. then let bygones be bygones and start fresh.
Normally, that would definitely be a possibility. I'm not even remotely averse to reversing my own terminations, as I'm more concerned with current and future conduct than past conduct.
But with the status quo of continuing to create new accounts, Satan will be throwing an ice-skating party first.
lisa- most people knew that they were the same people,
Maybe you've got a link to this alleged second account? Until I see one, I'm going to have to go with my possibly flawed recollection that what you're saying happened didn't really happen.
they allowed a poster to maintain a membership that utilized si for an sec rule violation,. was fined for it, and they (si) did nothing about it.
I'm not saying that such a situation couldn't be true, but I'm curious. Who're you talking about? I don't recall that situation.
To be honest, in all these years it never hit me to ask why Cousin Shorty and Tastes Like chicken were allowed to coexist on SI when they seem to hammer home the no multiple alias philosophy...and then the question hit me this morning
What's really odd is that I can't find an alias on SI for "cOUSIN SHORTY" and don't recall "CS" and "TLC" being multiple accounts. My recollection (which can admittedly be flawed so I won't state is as fact) is that CS was a persona TLC used in his own account to post his newsletters.
Do you have the CS profile bookmarked? I'm very interested in seeing confirmation of the multiple accounts.
DD amusement again.
lisa. the reason the pictures weren't considered a tos violation by bob is simple. they were posted by one of his friends
from si,
Do you know they weren't considered a violation or are you just assuming that they weren't and presenting it as fact to support your oft-stated assertion that I'm biased.
I'm really interested in hearing your answer.
Thanks for reminding others about the rules of engagement here.
I'll return the favor by reminding you that this isn't the "Bash Bob" thread, and the huge volume of some peoples' posts here is definitely in the harassment zone.