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: Rambi who wrote (47739)	7/28/1999 9:49:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Nice try, Penni, thanks, but no thanks. CH is one of those people who will stop at nothing to try to salvage a losing argument.

To: Rambi who wrote (47739)	7/28/1999 10:20:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Did you read the post I was responding to? Cobalt posted: I do admit to being ignorant of any worthwhile aspect of your personality. Since one aspect of my personality she was aware of was my concern for infants and children, she was saying that she does not believe a concern for infants and children to be worthwhile. You have to look at messages in context. Frankly, I think her comment was both a lie and unworthy of her. I suspect the heat is getting to her. But she said it, and I am have to believe she was not intentionally lying. So putting what I had said and she said together, my response was not only not "silly," it was both appropriate and logically necessary. I have no idea what her dreams are for any child -- she hasn't laid any out here. I have. So it's up to her to say whether her dreams match mine. And so far she has disagreed with everything I have said, so I have no reason to think this would be any different. BTW, I do NOT support the current social services systems, which almost everywhere are a travesty. Don't forget, right across the mountains from where I live we had the infamous Wenatchee cases. You will notice if you actually read my posts that every time I talk about government services that a) focus on benefits for the child and b) treat the recipient with respect and dignity. Since you were in the system for a while, can you explain to me why virtually every social services worker I come across starts with the propositions that a) she (and it usually is a she) knows far better than any parent what is good for every child, b) parents are assumed to be evil until proved otherwise, but no parent has ever proved otherwise to the satisfaction of a social services agency, at most the agency admits they can't PROVE that the parent is evil, c) to treat people with respect and dignity violates some fundamental principle of social servicing?