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: Ilaine who wrote (69879)	1/1/2000 7:34:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 108807

What's wrong with sex with sheep? I think sheep are lovely. Not that I want to have sex with them. But if men want to have sex with sheep (assuming men- never heard women mentioned in connection with sheep) what's WRONG with that? Assuming the sheep consent, or aren't in pain, or whatever- as long as it isn't animal abuse who CARES? In my high school their was a guy who was reputed to do his dog (also his sister, and it might have been true- and since that's incest and against the law I can't support that)- but I remember wondering at the time, what's wrong with that? At least he isn't getting some teenage girl pregnant. Of course that was before I heard about him and his sister. But I am still OK with men and sheep, or goats, or watermelons. Or whatever.

To: Ilaine who wrote (69879)	1/1/2000 7:39:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

CB, I am not sure what "savage personal attacks" you are referring to but I can honestly say I have not been a part of them. You seem to be generalizing toward an entire group of people when you could be referring to one or two posts you dislike. Additionally, if your goal in Y2K was to create more understanding and peace among members of this thread, that tone is the wrong way to go about it IMO. Michael

To: Ilaine who wrote (69879)	1/1/2000 7:59:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Damn! I ALMOST made a clean getaway. I ALMOST managed to stay out of this little brouhaha over Danny boy. But alas, this post was just too much. I thought we had some decent discussions last week and I had hoped things might lighten up. But, this post CB is a bit much. You've been railing against third party, ad hominem attacks and then employ that very technique in your exhortation to Danny boy to take the high road. Whether you believe that calling Bill's post "disgusting" is factual or not, he will see it as an attack. I know I do. If it was important enough to comment on, why not post it directly to Bill? Now if we all want to get along as we discussed and cut down the polarization, then perhaps you would agree that this post by yourself is probably not going to do much in accomplishing that goal. And this is why it is silly to bemoan the loss of an "attitude" or a ""tone" on this thread which you can not be bothered to adhere to yourself. It makes no difference to me. I am willing to make an effort to reduce the polarization you identified. I am also quite willing to use the same techniques I see you employ which are quite polarizing if that's the way the thread goes too. Just my two cents for what they are worth. JLA

To: Ilaine who wrote (69879)	1/1/2000 8:09:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

CB, as I've said publicly and privately, I got no desire to see this particular line of discussion continue, that post, Message 12436479 , was I think my first comment on the matter, at least recently. Ish sure can dish it out, though, just like the rest of the guys. If any of the innocent bystanders want more contention, I'd suggest tuning in to Animal Planet on cable/satellite today, where there's a "Judge Wapner Y2K Judgement Day" marathon going on. Poor Wapner, relegated to animal court by Judge Judy. The one bit I saw, some guy was suing the owners of the dog he hit with his car, the dog dented it. Ewwww. Whether that particular case was more or less tasteful than the sheep discussion here, I can't say. Cheers, Dan.

To: Ilaine who wrote (69879)	1/1/2000 10:07:00 PM
From: Michael M	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

CB -- shortly after my arrival here, I asked about someone's reference to sex with sheep. Maybe I'm mixed up but I seem to recall people reporting Feelies going through a sex with sheep phase. Do you remember that? I could be wrong about this -- wouldn't faze me. I'd just as soon get my mistake for the year out of the way. M

To: Ilaine who wrote (69879)	1/2/2000 11:47:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<Suggesting that you have sex with sheep is about the most disgusting thing I've seen in my life, and it's pretty surprising coming from a man who gets offended that you might make a disparaging remark about his mother (Vaughn). >> Where did I say anything about sex? And, in the new great national ritual, could you please define what you mean by the word sex? Was my reference to sex with sheep on this thread, or would you prefer to drag old arguments from another thread over here again? Please tell us, Cobalt. And tell us again about that "polarization" stuff again and about 3rd party attacks. We like when you preach. Cobalt, seems you're taking a play from Schuh's book on obsession. You couldn't even conduct your New Year's Day feelies-fest without bringing my mother into it. If you weren't so damn slap-stick funny, you'd be loathsome.