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: Solon who wrote (58355)	9/17/2002 2:11:56 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) of 82486

Sorry but that isn’t exactly how it went. I’ll try to recreate the scenario and address your comments. ”Well, the letter "X" does have a right to post.” Yes, and I have no authority to stop her. I also have the right to object to things that are annoying or harassing. ”If I remember correctly, you were using the technique of "closing the door" in order to carry the day in whatever the Hell was being argued about.” This is not accurate. X had cut me off previously as per the quote I posted yesterday…. “nor do I want to talk to you.” Making a statement that you do not want to talk to someone is different that forbidding them to post??? As you pointed out and as if anyone thinks we have the right or authority to accomplish such things. Apparently X thinks that I think, that she thinks she does… I was willing to talk to X. She had taken a position of not wanting to talk to me. To clarify whether or not she was interested in intelligent discussion I responded to her post thusly: ”If you do not wish to talk to me over the issues of this thread then do not post to me in the future. I find it very annoying and harrassing to post comments to me only to follow that by a comment that you don't want to talk to me. Parsing view points from context while refusing to contemplate opposing disputation lacks authenticity. Not interested. The ballistic stuff followed and destroyed constructive dialogue on the thread. Talking to some one involves a discourse, wherein ideas are exchanged and the opportunity for melding and developing thoughtful growth opportunities are offered. You can post to someone without having a conversation (talking to them). You can post repeatedly to them without any discourse at all. You can do this when they don’t want you to. You can demean and harangue them when they ask you to stop. This is not having a topical discussion (talking to someone). This is what X was doing. I labeled it appropriately, harassment. ”In my opinion, one ought to see it through to the end before engaging such housekeeping issues. I agree. And if you care to look back at the exchange on April 25th SMBR, I think you will agree that you are preaching to the choir. I ”Such "tricks" should not carry any weight in the middle of a disputation. What were you arguing about anyway? We were in the middle of a lively discussion on Assisted Suicide. I was enthralled and in no way carrying the day. IMO, X’s input could have made the discussion even more interesting if she would have been willing to engage in a conversation instead of simply promoting spiteful ill will.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next