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.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum
GLD 368.78+0.2%Nov 3 4:00 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Tom Daly who wrote (71719)3/8/2011 10:52:57 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) of 217531
 
<<So, this is your explanation of why you think I wrote hate messages?
Were you not obliquely advocating that the late-arrival Chinese to be ejected from Tibet? If so, by proxy, hate, as it relates to israel per discussion point and as it relates to late-arrival Chinese.>>


... Yes, of course, as you chose me to engage in a discussion in progress n subsequently refused to clarify your confusing message as read back to you, and so I took the refusal as acquiescence, naturally. You do that repeatedly when engaging me in discussions.

<<In answer to the first part of the above, no I never directly or obliquely advocated anything like that and you know I didn't.>>

... Good. And no, I did not know, because of the moments you usually choose, habitually, to enter into discussions at junctures when anything you write can be easily misunderstood. Perhaps it be feelings deep w/I you, but that would be another discussion at another time, when you would be misunderstood again, especially when you refuse to make clarifying statements per format easily understood by one you choose to engage n who repeated back to you what he thought he heard. The responsibility is with you.

<<Your attempt to imply I did "obliquely" is a weak attempt to support this explanation>>

... Weak or not, it is the explanation.

<<You still have not pointed our specifics of the hate speech you falsely & publicly accused me of. You can't because there was no hate speech.>>

... I did, read back the discussion we just had. Apparently I misunderstood you. Ok, and so you answered my question satisfactorily, as you were not in truth advocating the forced relocation of anyone, n chose to make no points re Tibet per topic of chinese sovereignty, and you were not writing hate messages.

I am guessing because you understood the discussion that was going on, particularly these points Message 27219580

In any case, Thank you for clarifying your messages, and for answering one out of my two questions, namely Message 27219068

"what is it about si administrations message do you not get?

why must you instigate and continue to write hate messages on this thread?"
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext