Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: E who wrote (56538)	9/2/2002 7:01:47 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) of 82486

Well, Part II was responsive. You went to a lot of trouble making that post, and I don't wish to appear as blowing it off with too short of a reply (I read every word you wrote). It seems to me that a major premise you are setting forth is that making a judgment of "harassment" requires considerable study of the mental and emotional states of both alleged harasser and harassee. Your alleged harassment was extenuated by your own emotional state, while X's peception of harassment was exaggerated due to her emotional state at the time. Similarly, CH's alleged harassment should be magnified by some ratio in proportion to the PTSD condition that Poet had declared. (I am not sure where CH's own mental and emotional state might fit into this theory in either diminishing or exacerbating the severity of his harassment). I guess plain-speakers might just say, "harassment is in the eyes the beholder" (whether the beholder is harasser, harassee, or disinterested third party). Maybe that itself explains why the CH/Poet controversy will seemingly never be laid to rest.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next