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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (3951)	8/21/1999 11:10:00 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Neocon, Sorry, I thought the question was rhetorical. There are quite simply two answers that apply to both individuals. The primary exhibited behavior for both individuals is that they respond to things that were never stated; they assign "positions" to individuals that have no substance and do so in a crude and boorish manner and in some cases exhibiting bigoted language. I'll use Bill Vaughn as an example because it leads to the second point. Bill V. accused me of being a "Marxist", I asked him to provide the basis of that accusation...what position did I take that was Marxist? Bill, of course, can produce no such evidence. What does Bill do? He responds with a "I called you a Marxist" and then poses whether the problem is if I can read or write. How does that relate to the request for the basis of the accusation? So, how would you characterize people who make unsupportable accusations? Shifting to the crude and bigoted language. jla in a recent post referred to someone as a "fag". There was another pejorative adjective in front of that but I won't bother to look it up. Now I consider the use of that term as crude and reflecting an underlying tone of bigotry. If I recall correctly, jla asserts he is an attorney and attorneys have been disbarred for using similar language. I find the language to be unacceptable and offensive. This group of people use terms such as maggot, coward, femmaNazi, Marxist, fag, ad nauseum and encourage each other in the approach as if it is acceptable. So, I ask you pointedly is this a method of dialogue that you support and encourage either by active participation or by silence? So what is it I'm attempting to "do"? I certainly, don't expect to affect change in the underlying individual at least in terms of the bigotry. The bigotry is likely to deeply seated. I can point out the bigotry, the crudeness, the inconsistencies and the errors of the posts and may do so in a ridiculing manner when, IMO, it seems warranted. Best Regards, Jim