Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (39735)	6/8/1999 8:10:00 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 108807

moma.org

To: Dayuhan who wrote (39735)	6/8/1999 10:08:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

While the attacks on Ann Angel are amusing and fun for those of wit and intelligence to write, and I have done so myself, reading a whole string of them makes me queasy. If she is mentally ill, which I consider a possibility, it is inappropriate to attack her. If she is a martyr for a cause, it is useless to attack her. If a strong commitment to religion is genetic in part or whole (and if sexual orientation, and penchant for violence, and happiness quotient, and similar behavioral attributes are considered partly genetic, then I would suspect that religious excess may well also be) it is like attacking somebody because they are gay. If she's just obnoxious, it is merely unkind. I certainly do say to her "don't go away mad, just go away," but I think the level and viciousness of the attacks on her is unwarranted and does not speak well of the combined intelligence of this thread. (It has almost become a sport as to who can outdo who in meanness, a pack attack mentality, a piling on syndrome). Is this really the way people who claim to be people of intelligence and wit and wisdom should treat people?