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: Neocon who wrote (57863)	10/8/1999 2:17:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

"Effrontery" -- meaning "shamelessly insulting audacity" is certainly much too big a word for a fine lady who called ridiculous twits like you and Michael "gullible." Now if she had called you an "idiot", or a "jerk", or a "fool", or a "moron", or a "scoundrel", or a "traitor" or an "imbecile", or a "varicocele" or a "scumbag" (as I might if I had the opportunity -- but I'll desist because of my natural courtesy) she might well be accused of excess, but the worst I could say about her use of "gullible" is that she might be guilty of serious understatement

To: Neocon who wrote (57863)	10/8/1999 3:10:00 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<<Well, here is the problem. I consider it disgraceful that there remain so many people eager to behave in a prosecutorial manner towards Ronald Reagan, and who will not even accord him the elementary respect of taking him seriously as a person.>>> Oh! You have called me disgraceful! Because you mean me! I am so upset! I don't know whether I can shrug this off! I feel disrespected! Isn't that nonsense? Anyway, I do take him seriously as a person. I think what his personal popularity represents, and the almost-deification of him represents, have serious and scary implications, as I said. I've said a lot about the argument issue already: Message 11481087 Message 11483805 <<<Add to this the effrontery of considering me gullible, and it is not so easy to shrug off....>>> But I DO consider gullible anyone who believed, in the 40's, Modern Romances magazine's presentation of The Life of the Stars, because that stuff is myth; and I consider a significant amount of what Reagan has said a meta-page out of the same magazine, and I consider those who, unlike George Schultz, believe Reagan's fabulations, to be gullible. As Schultz said in his memoirs, Ronald Reagan got a lot of bad advice as president but also deceived himself "almost knowingly" about facts that didn't suit him. And there were, and are, so many gullible people that he has a vast constituency, to my dismay. If that is effrontery, I stand condemned and unrepentant.