Mr. Westergaard,
I have dutifully read virtually every post prior this and found it in my best interests to refrain from engaging myself into this fray. Yes, the matter was going to evolve into a classic and important debate on free speech and the much more complicated issue of using true identities while expressing our opinions on the internet.
I have no idea "who" Steve Pluvia really is and of course, that puts his "credibility to the test" when he takes on the "identified" establishment" in a controversial issue. Yes, he has angered a few folks over at the PLSIA thread, I suspect, but so far as I can tell, he fell FAR SHORT of deserving the kind treatment that you have given him in this episode.
BUT, the anger he has created over at the PLSIA thread and perhaps at Westergaard Associates, will be far overshadowed, if you continue to persue this absolutely incredulous "theory" of religous "intelligence". Yes, all of us, in our years of life "might have written" something really out of line, something that we know we had the right to say, but on reflection later felt differently about it. Yes, we are all proud to live in a country that permits us to do this.
And this very strange interpretation of religious history, if you still really believe it, is your to have and keep. I will not share in it and what little (and rapidly disappearing) credibility with me you might have had, will vanish into thin air.
If you want any sense of sanity amongst those who might READ THIS in an INVESTMENT ADVISORY, I would suggest you REVALUATE THIS PIECE OF "LITERATURE" YOU WROTE, and relegate to your memoirs, for later consumption. Apologizing to Steve "Pluvia" might be within the realm of doable items, but to "the entire christian world community"??, I doubt it!
and now.......
TO Steve "Pluvia"
I read 200-300 posts of this thread and said, (1) well Steve has his hands full, (2) I have a personal dislike of "anonymous" writings (as did several (but a minority) of the Supreme Court Justices) in the recent Indiana annonymous flyer court case, and (3) the right of free speech was one that would ultimately fall in your favor.
Now that I reached post 600 plus, it is very clear - this case is one for your and your supporters to loose - carry on in a positive and constructive manner and you will most likely (and should) prevail.
But recognize also, the "universe" of posters to this thread is indeed small and unrepresentative of the general public. You will be forced into defending yourself in a much broader forum and things may not always fair so well in your favor. Mr. Westergaard is of course only familiar with the "pre-internet" world and his actions thus far have demonstrated his severve limitations in dealing with the post internet world. There are many judges and jurys that still have the very same limitations, I am afraid.
TO THE CREATOR(S) OF & SUPPORTERS OF WESTERFRAUD
I guess I haven't figured out which poster that is but I must admit that with me it slowed down Steve's case just a little bit. I guess it was done in humor and of course Westergaard is a public figure. And it is classic "free speech" on the Internet. But to many it probably was not in "good taste".
But I too, would feel better if we got back to the issues at hand. But for now that is for Steve and his supporters to decide. While I favor his case, I will leave to the experts to figure out where to go from here.
Ed |
