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: E who wrote (52550)	8/22/1999 4:10:00 AM
From: Michael M	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 108807

E, please don't bother to answer unless you must. Neither do I invite comment from others who might be named in the following. You have the right, of course..... The subject is now dust but I wanted to answer your post and summarize my own part in a discussion that brought out such strong feelings. The latter effort because I believe some here have set themselves against me for various personal reasons. Perhaps they will reconsider if they find the record I present accurate. Perhaps not. Well, E, before answering your question, let me ask you one. Did you really change your mind about views you expressed so forcefully or were you coerced by a need to be a member in good standing of the sisterhood on feelies? I found your turn remarkable. No problem. Just surprised. I was also fascinated that the feelie sisterhood was intent on reconciling with you and not at all with me. Certainly, you made remarks and accusations far more harsh than any that came from this keyboard. Your post stated that you didn't recall my asking about humans in relation to endangered species. If you wish to check, you will see in the very first post(#51764) that I asked YOU if man should intervene in an extraordinary way to save an endangered species. After remarks by you (#51767) I tried to explain my question (#51777) and emphasized a specific interest in environmentalist views. This post pointed to a follow up issue. This is a good time to admit to you that I am not in the "environmentalist camp," as you call it. I have tremendous respect for the environment and favor effort and expense to protect and preserve it. I am also appalled by the degree to which political agendas are advanced through environmentalism. I would love to see radical change in laws pertaining to endangered and protected species. You asked me, "Why don't you answer your question?" Assuming I understand your question -- I did quite clearly in post #52064. I was for attempting to preserve the human race. The man/woman question was first presented in #51803 in as non sexist a way as I could devise. At the end of that there was what was intended as a friendly and humorous remark for CB. CB presented her views (#52051) in a passionate, almost violent tone. My #52064 noted my position and disagreement with CB. I also expressed respect for CB's feelings and complimented her on such full and honest disclosure. In posting to jp (#52088) I introduced the idea of an individual making a great personal sacrifice for the benefit of the many. I closed with a statement of respect for ALL points of view. In # 52132, jp indicated that she saw my question in terms of "is rape appropriate to keep the race going." She said no. I replied in #52162 that my original focus was on what price is acceptable in preserving an endangered species. Here I also introduced "PC" by noting that THE SUBJECT was not PC (maybe PC should also stand for Polite Company). Although I took female respondents to task for views so far expressed, I DID NOT LABEL ANY OF THEIR RESPONSES AS PC. I ended the post by stating my personal view of rape. About this time I attempted to lighten the mood by posting a relevant joke that I had received from a strong and independent female friend in CA. My post (#52213) was part of a response chain on the subject of a joke started by you, E. I suspect my joke was taken as an insult rather than a ha ha and this led me to believe that one or two of the women respondents might have a bit of a chip on the shoulder. Then Joan, in #52390 asks why you are browbeating Steven (not a very browbeatable person, IMO). Joan questions any human "duty" to continue the human race. She says the only realistic reason the human race might be reduced to two would be a wicked or stupid action by "mankind," such as a nuclear exchange. This is not supportable. Surely Joan is not ignorant of biological and other natural horrors that visit us from time to time. She concludes by wondering why a morally deficient species (no foundation) should be perpetuated. I am steamed at Joan for the above. I state in #52396 that I think Joan's views are stupid. In closing I admit my words have been harsh and make conciliatory remarks to Joan. In #52397 Joan says I was wrong in referring to her in connection with the OED. She also restated the nuclear war scenario and labeled it "logical." I apologized to Joan (#52436) about the OED item. I then took her to task for so readily blaming humans for the world's ills. Taking off on her suggestion that maybe warring species did not deserve to survive, I mentioned a few prominent groups she might be in favor of getting rid of -- including the inhabitants of Dagestan. I told Joan I thought "emotional" might describe her view more accurately than "logical." I concluded the post with "Peace" Joan fired back at me (#52538) that she knew Dagestan well and expected to travel there soon. Although I am aware of some of Joan's interests and background, I have no idea what significance her statement had in relation to what we were talking about. She concluded her post by stating I make ridiculous assumptions about other people. In #52540 I said, "Name the assumptions and shop around for a sense of humor,Joan." She has not so far identified the assumption. The second part of my statement was mean and I regret it. In #52519 I point out numerous erroneous statements made by CB in #52440. I ended with a sincere thank you to CB for her contributions. I bowed out of the discussion in post #52539 at which time I restated my original purpose in bringing up the subject. Some of the post numbers near the end are out of order. I doubt if that has any bearing on the content. Didn't mean to ignore your question about the "sleeper" issue, CB. Best it comes to you on its own -- I suspect some night you'll startle your husband with an out of the Blue, "That son of a bitch...." Until then -- Happy Trails..... Michael