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: Lane3 who wrote (75489)	9/25/2003 2:54:53 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) of 82486

Lot of shoulds there… to many to make your question simple but here is my take. Purpose: A wedding IS the proper time and place for a couple to make their union a public issue. They vow to hold one another in a certain light and ask the community to witness and support their declaration. A formal affair, such as the one you describe, is typically by invitation only. Should #1: The focus of all participants ‘should’ be to allow and support the public union being declared and witnessed without distracting attempts to grab the light of the occasion to shine on them. Should #2: Participants should be invited who have some stake in witnessing and supporting the occasion, and who intend to support the occasion without drawing attention to their own issues. It would be silly to invite a member of Hammas (who insists on wearing anti-Israeli T-shirts 24/7) to a wedding being held in a synagogue. It’s possible that the host would not have been informed about the conflict at the time of distributing the invitations. It is incumbent upon the Host to make attempts to eliminate or reduce the impact of any conditions that would be counter to the purpose of the wedding. If negotiation with the Hammas member failed, the host should make efforts to rescind the invitation prior to the event. If the t-shirt wearing radical made it to the wedding under the radar of the host it is a different issue. If the purpose of the wedding is being achieved and little or no notice is taken regarding Mr Ham, the Host should view it as a no harm done incident and move on. If Mr. Ham is intent on disrupting the wedding to have his day in the light, he should be removed. Should #3: Your situation is similar to Mr. Ham. You insist on going to the wedding, knowing that you are there beating your own drum over the voice of the objecting Hostess (unless you had no idea until actually in the wedding that there was an issue). You stated that you knew it would be offensive, right? It is quite common for moms to look for ways to grab the lime light during the wedding of their offspring. That is a shouldn’t. You say, say you were acting with the best of intentions … regarding what; the wedding, your political statement about casual dress, or something else? It appears that you are being true to form...you did not do this wedding...you did something else.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next