SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: one_less who wrote (75316)9/22/2003 5:37:57 PM
From: Solon  Read Replies (1) of 82486
 
"The circumstance has been defined as high risk. That has been made abundantly clear to you. mojo has identified no particular culprit"

OK. Now you are back to the line that it IS high risk...AGAIN! LOL! This is becoming HILARIOUS!

So...WHO is it HIGH RISK FOR??? And does the risk have anything to do with the reason for discriminating against women and homosexuals?? If it does NOT, then WHY bring it up? If it is not relevant to the reason for discrimination then WHY bring it up, Jewels??

Who is at high risk? Is it bumble bees" Is it ants? Is it cows or goats? WHO??

And the curious would still like to know why you are excluding women and homosexuals from your massages when they are not at high risk? You must have a reason. But it is such a big secret, isn't it?! Big, big secret--but look at all the attention it is getting you and your cartoon fun with your Moho persona?!!

"Can you claim that the circumstance isn't endowed with higher than normal incidents of harmful behavior?"

Well, it is far less than many of the professions. I don't know if it is right on the bottom or not. But I would gladly look it up for you if you think it is important what ranking it holds.

But I fail to see the relevance. You refuse to state that anyone in particular is at risk for being harmed...so perhaps it is only ants. When I stated earlier (a repeat of something you had said in various words scores of times) that women and homosexuals were at greater risk of misconduct, you took a righteous fit and denied it all the way into mysterious mode, again.

Now you are back AGAIN talking about risk. So....WHO is at high risk? Monkeys? All people who go for massages? Some people who go for massages? And...again...if you are not excluding women because they are at risk...then be decent enough to share with us just WHY you are excluding them. Stand up straight, and speak straight for once. Act like a man, and stop all this wishy washy mojo good boy nonsense.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News