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: Michael M who wrote (54384)	9/3/1999 2:58:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Michael, I agree that you and I have exchanged a number of cordial, informative posts. On the other hand, I did not appreciate nor enjoy the post in which you referred to certain unspecified men on the thread as women "wannabes", an unwarranted, and false, slur. >>>>>While there may have been only 11 "women" posting during the specified period, there were a goodly number of others in the "wannabe" camp.<<<<< Nor did I appreciate your allegation that there was A women's line of thinking, and woe to any male who doesn't kow-tow to it: why not give examples? >>>>>I view this as a stronghold of women. While there are spirited debates galore on some subjects, woe is any male here who doesn't cow to the woman's line of thinking of ANY subject relating to women.<<<<< Nor did I appreciate your assertion that anyone who "steps outside PC lines of interest to women on this thread is going to get hammered." Do you mean callling women stupid is merely "stepping outside PC lines of interest? >>>>>I have been slightly amused by the recent reference to PC here and what seems to be a prevailing view that little of that exists on feelies. IMO, any poster who steps outside PC lines on issues of interest to women on this thread is going to get HAMMERED. And it won't be just women doing the hammering.<<<<< You characterized E's argument on the last two humans on earth as "the only instance of unauthorized sister-speech" - I think that women and men here speak for themselves. I think what you really mean is that you liked E's argument, and not the other ones, but you don't realize that. >>>>>So far, the only instance of unauthorized sister-speech I've seen was E's early stance on the perpetuation of humanity.<<<<< And then you say that only one woman here has an interest in men who are not 100% cuddly, as if you had any idea what women here prefer. >>>>>So far, I have noted only one woman here (hate to paint a bulls-eye by naming names) who perhaps has an interest in men who are not 100 percent cuddly. Actually, this probably not a fair comment -- it's possible many feelie women would be floored if their husband or boyfriend started posting here.<<<<< You say there is plenty of male-bashing, but you offer no examples, wish you would. >>>>>There is plenty of evidence (just in the past few weeks) of the male sex being stereotyped and trashed here. The type of comments that would not be tolerated for one second if referring to women.<<<<< I asked why you didn't start a thread devoted to male interests because you said that "truly civilized discussions among just men or just women are the exception." >>>>>I'm glad when there are men and women in any discussion but believe strongly that truly civilized discussions among just men or just women are the rule rather than the exception.<<<<< Well, that's it for now. Gotta run.

To: Michael M who wrote (54384)	9/3/1999 3:35:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

MM, you just can't let go, can you? Since you keep bringing it up, I guess I am finally going to have to address that "insult" that apparently still rankles you so much, as the following indicates: An opening dispute with Joan about bias in the media in which she stopped debating and clearly implied that I was drunk (not ad hominem, of course). I responded by referring to her as Missy Joanie Baloney or some such. I then fended off a personal attack or two from Joan defenders and an attempt by Joan to paint me as a roving hyena "spoiling for a fight." Let's start from the beginning. I was having a debate with Christopher about the media. You appeared for the first time on the thread, and joined in the debate forthwith, directing some questions my way. Apparently dissatisfied with my responses, you made a remark about "Masters of Obfuscation." When I asked whether you meant I was one, you responded with a rather snotty (yes, it was snotty)post containing the following passage: Should you care to know -- I have been around the block a number of times myself. Enough to know conversations like this properly take place in small drab bars that stay open until everyone decides to go home (ha ha on the "home"). In the best cases, at least two contributors are clearly drunk and there is one person getting hammered so badly that they eventually want to fight someone. My response was as follows: Yeah, I figured you were drunk. But I was too polite to say so. No doubt, to make sure that you didn't miss the point, I should have written: "Yeah, when we were in the bar together last night, the last two customers, I figured you were drunk, but I didn't say so, because I was too polite, hahahahaha." As for my remark about roving hyenas, it had absolutely nothing to do with you at all. The reference was to the kind of people who rove the threads looking for arguments on subjects they are obsessed with. Far as I know, you are not a rover. For someone who likes to needle other people, you have a remarkably thin skin.