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.

Technology Stocks : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (7854)	8/8/1999 2:08:00 PM
From: bearcub	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

well, then, let's trade cats :) now, karen, i didn't pick on "one little old itty bitty sentence. i flat out disagreed with your slipperly slope analogy, even framed by all your qualifiers. by the way, it is DELIGHTFUL to meet someone who even knows they are using qualifiers, let alone can properly conversationally label them correctly. KUDOS! for example, i'd like to expand the discussion of social contracts. i find it fascinating that i was discussing this very concept with an alcoholic business associate just the other day. so your frame of reference, i.e., social contracts, is a fresh discussion point without a lot of emotional garbage attached. if you need more compliments to be able to accept the philosophical differences part of my replies, just let me know the mixture of compliments to polite, civil disagreements that is palatable to you, and i'll try to mix and match appropriately. deal? now regarding your point of p.c. terms: i believe labels are polarizing, and sometimes useful distancing mechanisms. labels are used primarily in polite conversation when one wishes to establish verbal parameters to let the listeners in on where the speaker falls in a particular 'continuum' to use your phrase. a non-threatening example is hereby proferred by c.k.houston, thread starter here. she has self-labelled 'coal miner's daughter' and 'lifestyles of the rich and famous' on several occasions over the last few years. so, i postulate that by using her labels when talking to her or about a concept she purports is appropriate and should not be considered offensive. there are NO P.C labels/terms that are acceptable in a y2k discussion unless they are self-labels by the speaker as a matter of course. personally, i use "prepared and preparing" to describe us vs whatever those who like to label themselves on the vs. end of the continuum like to call themselves. personally, i regret calling anyone a pollyanna, frankly, because i don't believe anyone who has formed an opinion on y2k deserves the lala land inferences that 'polly' conjures up, at least at our supper table. re: your 'my family is adults' implies mine aren't? now, dearie. i'm 73. how many toddler/kitties do you think i'm herding? except for the grand and great grandkiddies, i haven't herded anyone. let alone all my headstrong 'blended family' offspring. in point of fact, one of the beauties of blended families is learning how incredibly strong familyies of creation are as opposed to families of origin. your original post contained a polarity that was also a point of philosophical disagreement. want me to go dig it out now? i'm interested in ideas, that is why the family discussions have flowed so freely and passionately over the years in our home. y2k has just been the latest fodder for some gooders, not a creation of a whole new form of famalial bondage. shall we proceed or drop it here? the choice is yours. and i'm glad you blushed and got all warm and fuzzy. you're adorable when you get that way.