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: Edwarda who wrote (70200)	1/2/2000 5:53:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 108807

Historic revisionism, Edwarda. Neo had the opportunity to discuss it with me yesterday, we started discussing it at 1:49 p.m., and he signed off at 3:19 p.m., but he took the opportunity to dismiss my argument as "mistaken" and "silly." Some "highlights": ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To: Neocon who wrote (69456) From: CobaltBlue Saturday, Jan 1, 2000 1:49 PM ET Reply # 69729 of 70205 Neo, picking up where we left off, with respect to your having "pet names" for Daniel, my opinion is that "the one whom I do not acknowledge any longer" is a "pet name," like "she who must be obeyed." Kind of like Vaughn making references to the sheep in Wisconsin. That's my opinion, and I am sticking to it. BTW, Ish, I think you owe me an apology, but I am not holding my breath. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To: Ish who wrote (69806) From: CobaltBlue Saturday, Jan 1, 2000 3:04 PM ET Reply # 69810 of 70203 "Pet name" doesn't mean calling someone a name. It means "nickname." It's a way of referring to someone without using their name. My point, which I think I have adequately demonstrated was correct, is that Neo does discuss Daniel on the thread, despite his assertions that he doesn't. That's all. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To: CobaltBlue who wrote (69810) From: Neocon Saturday, Jan 1, 2000 3:06 PM ET Reply # 69812 of 70203 "Actually, Neo does comment on your comments, but not to you. He's got pet names for you, not very nice ones. Just thought I'd point that out for the record, if anyone's keeping track." You are still mistaken.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To: CobaltBlue who wrote (69815) From: Neocon Saturday, Jan 1, 2000 3:12 PM ET Respond to Post # 69819 of 70206 LOL! I am happy to leave it, silly as it is..... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To: Ish who wrote (69816) From: Neocon Saturday, Jan 1, 2000 3:19 PM ET Respond to Post # 69830 of 70206 Much as I love arguments with mutating terms, I guess I will get on with my HF life too.....See ya!!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For the record, the original post to which I refer: To: CobaltBlue who wrote (66592) From: Neocon Tuesday, Dec 14, 1999 12:37 PM ET Reply # of 69761 They were made by the one whom I do not acknowledge any longer, and Christine. Your insinuations, although there, were not dreadful....