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 (50648)	8/11/1999 1:47:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

What a perfect post.

To: Rambi who wrote (50648)	8/11/1999 2:06:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Wow -- What you were doing seemed to me to border on a very intimate sexual act What I did was to lave Edwarda's feet. Figuratively at first, then virtually. Further on I kissed up to the top of her ankles and maybe (my mind is hazy on when things quit) to her knees -- I know somebody else mentioned her kneecaps, and I think I responded to that, but that was that, other than a biblical illusion. I was every bit as far away from any intimate areas as you are when you shake hands with a man. Maybe I'm an insensitive male, but I don't see that as bordering on a very intimate sexual act. I also gave E a foot massage. Sensual, certainly. At least I hope (!). But implying an intimate act? Come on, now. Haven't you ever had a backrub or foot massage that didn't end up in doing IT? (If not, I pity you.) I think you are trying to categorize your "actions" which were heading toward a pretty definite implied conclusion, with mild flirtation, or sexual wordplay, or a witty off color remark, and I disagree. Not implication. Inference, yes. But I think that says more about the reader than the writer. And even if there had been an implied conclusion there it is hardly something unknown to people here, and far more innocuous than what is in books, and movies, TV, magazines, music, etc. throughout our entire culture. That may be be bad, it may be good, or it may be both or neither. But if you deprive yourself of reading any books in which the parties at some point are "heading toward a pretty definite implied conclusion" because your sensibilities require you to skip over those portions, then at least 90% of the NYT fiction list is off limits to you, and about 99% of all first run movies (including most Disney movies). Now Beltane, I will agree, got pretty hot and heavy. And wonderful, and totally enjoyable, and a memorable experience never to be forgotten. But I think E is right that there is more going on here than the actual content of the posts merited. ...flirtation and sexual innuendo. THey're fun. Yes, they are. And also harmless. And well within the boundaries of contemporary social taste for anyone over 18 years old.

To: Rambi who wrote (50648)	8/11/1999 2:09:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

When I finished on this thread I wandered over to Laughter and the first post I came across was: A little girl is in line to see Santa When it is her turn, she climbs up on Santa's lap Santa asks, "What would you like Santa to bring you for Christmas?" The little girl replies, "I want a Barbie and GI Joe" Santa looks at the little girl for a moment and says, "I thought Barbie comes with Ken." "No", said the little girl "She comes with GI Joe, she fakes it with Ken" Now THAT is sexually suggestive. I would never be that crude.

To: Rambi who wrote (50648)	8/11/1999 2:46:00 PM
From: Edwarda	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Hi, Penni! Now I'm going to throw my two cents in as well. I have already said that I am very sorry if anything that I Chris and I posted offended or embarrassed anyone. We were not having a cyberaffair nor are we. Honestly, it was all in play on both sides with no thought or intention of a serious seduction. I suspect that it may have seemed more suggestive than many other flirtatious remarks because of the images it evoked. I can understand some of the objections, but it does seem to me that Chris is being held to a higher standard than is normally applied to posters on this thread--possibly because of the various contentions in which he has been involved, which appear to have engendered a desire in some posters to jump on him when possible. This is not fair dealing.

To: Rambi who wrote (50648)	8/11/1999 6:23:00 PM
From: Thomas C. White	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

I have a longstanding online semi-flirtation, as everyone here knows, with Thomas, though it isn't particularly sexual. Ummm...excuuuuse me...but semi??? Am I hearing right here? After all the times we managed to nauseate our reluctant audience, all you can say is semi??? Love slavery?? Hot tub soirees?? Blatant innuendoes about polishing your brass for you?? Meeting you in camoflauge boxers?? Madam, allow me to assure you in no uncertain terms that I am taking umbrage here.

To: Rambi who wrote (50648)	8/12/1999 12:55:00 AM
From: E	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I would like to say that I believe everything you said is right. As usual. I feel very bad for my involvement in this whole thing. I think it is true that the examples of sexual discussion I cited in defense of Christopher are different than one-on-one scenarios, even if the scenarios are done jokily-- because they are making people uncomfortable who haven't been made uncomfortable by the other discussions. Or at least not uncomfortable enough to complain. Christopher, that's the bottom line, clearly. This thread isn't Beltane, and is, in fact, a home to people whom it is impolite to make uncomfortable. Penni, I want to say that in my perception, Christopher was being singled out, and judged by a different standard, and was on the receiving end of impoliteness that made me uncomfortable. I still do think that things have been said to him that were beyond the pale; and I wish you had acknowledged that, if you thought so, too; or said that they weren't beyond yours, if you thought they were fine; or something. They made me feel for Christopher, and they don't just go away for me. I don't think it's fair to paint him as the sole villain here. But, to Christopher: In my opinion, you have been offensive, too-- When I got in tonight and read your gratuitous, James-like slam against women, and saw that you were continuing your hate-is-love posts to X far beyond the point when it could conceivably be characterized as attempting to respond to personal attacks jocularly instead of angrily, which i thought you were doing earlier, adjacent to the repulsive-maggot attack, I had a very different feeling. Now, it is starting to feel like harassment to me, almost. Anyway, I apologize to everybody for my involvement in this whole episode, which has so obviously been distasteful to people. X, if I was unfair in my questions to you, if it actually was an apples and oranges thing, I'm sorry. I apologize to you, Christopher, because maybe in PM's and here, where I was partisan toward you, I think I saw things wrongly. Or partly wrongly. Christopher, if penni and Lather and Steven and jpmac and some others I respect very much all feel the same about this, you and I both have been deaf to something we should have heard. Edwarda heard it quite quickly. X, I only left you off the list because you were not a disinterested party. Nothing personal. Really. You know I think you were mean.