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: Neocon who wrote (77025)	10/8/2003 6:26:05 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) of 82486

”Could that be the hideous thing” Karen was genuinely reasoning with the mojo hypothetical originally. Solon came on board with both barrels blasting and no interest in much more than that. Chris showed up giving self indulgent speeches about his anti-discrimination activism. Solon went to solonism fairly quickly. I tried encouraging chris to consider the reasoning in this scenario. He said no reasons were of interest to him and went on Shouting from the soap box. I found that irritating and told him so. He proclaimed victimhood and was pretty much adversarial from there on. Karen empathized with the opposition and so was having asides with them. She tried to tone their dialogue down but was ineffective since she was also validating there position. At that point most people agreed that like him or not mojo should be just left to practice his way as long as he was not making a public issue of it. Karen promoted a topic in which she was invited to a wedding. Her idea was to include key factors that paralleled the mojo hypothetical. It actually exposed what she was not getting about the mojo scenario more than it exposed any criticism of the mojo scenario. On top of that several people criticized her for her view of the wedding scenario (now revealed as a hypo about Auntie K). I was not one of them. My view was that who ever chose to distract from the purpose of the wedding was at fault (mother of the groom or auntie k.) Karen made a comment about mojo being sheltered which I found ironic since the hypo paints him as kind of bold and daring in his challenge to the system and since she is such a reserved person herself. Here comes Rambi: Rambi posts a general statement just because Karen supplied a hypothetica situation is no excuse to make personal comments about Karen. Karen posted to me saying even “poor Rambi” had become upset by my behavior. I responded, clarifying that Rambi’s comment did not identify me. Here comes Rambi again assuring me that I was the target of her finger pointing. Well I told her I figured she was just providing warm cocoa to a friend upon request, anything else that she was attempting was very uniformed etc. Obviously she was being guided on her venture so I have also called it exploitation of a possibly willing pon (pawn). That was the ultimate insult (or maybe it was the ringlets comment). ”Could that be the hideous thing” When the reasoning of the mojo hypo was finally flushed out by you and I. It was or should be obvious that all of the powerful negative statements, and the positioning among comrades regarding the mojo scenario were unnecessary and extremely hateful and unjustified. Some bumpkin insisted on exposing as much of that as he could. Then some other dude was cordial enough to discuss it with him … the messenger(s) need to be shot … or at least ignored.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next