I started out with a post correcting Patricia Trinchero, taken from Mother Jones, as a source she could not contradict:
Message 18518226
You started nipping at my heels, asserting that it was naivete, and not an ethical problem, that got Neil in trouble. I then replied:
siliconinvestor.com
You said that all the directors were fined for mismanagement, and not an ethics problem. I replied:
siliconinvestor.com
You said the words are never attributed to a particular authority, and therefore were an urban myth. I replied:
siliconinvestor.com
You said that they fined him because the S&L went bust, without attributing blame. I replied:
siliconinvestor.com
You made a big deal out of taking the phrase "ethical diability" literally, as if I had a large stake in that phrase. I replied:
siliconinvestor.com
You took the phrase about a disease literally, which I did not, and also made a megillah out of a phrase in one of my citations, even though I had only cited it as evidence of the ubiquity of the phrase "ethical disability", and was not in a position of endorsing it wholesale. I replied:
siliconinvestor.com
You played gotcha because I forgot that one of my sources referred to Neil as an officer of the bank, even though I had posted it for a different purpose last week. I replied:
siliconinvestor.com
You had another line going with me about how only saps thought there was a disease known as "ethical disability". I replied:
Message 18527850
You then compared my quoting miscellaneously to quoting journalists who praised Hitler. I replied:
siliconinvestor.com
You declined to prove anything, merely asserting that you were right, and asserting that I quoted only whackos or people with axes to grind. I replied:
siliconinvestor.com
You asserted that I had stood up for the idea of "ethical disability" as a real disease, and also asserted that I was gullible, after saying that Neil was just fined for signing documents. I replied:
siliconinvestor.com
You reiterated, despite my disclaimer, that I endorsed the idea of a disease known as "ethical disability", or insisted that that was the term used formally in fining Bush. Than you take credit for refuting Patricia, and claim I jumped in, when, in fact, I refuted her independently, and you jumped in on me. Then you say I suggested there were criminal proceedings against Bush, which I never did. And I replied:
siliconinvestor.com
And blah, blah, blah. I will leave it to the candid to decide..... |
