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 (71131)	1/6/2000 10:49:00 AM
From: Edwarda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

He doesn't make me uncomfortable. Rather he strikes me as a blot on the landscape to be ignored unless he picks on a person like Sherry.

To: Ilaine who wrote (71131)	1/6/2000 1:58:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

This post is totally uncalled for. Just my opinion of course. JLA

To: Ilaine who wrote (71131)	1/6/2000 5:24:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Cobe. No. You didn't write that unseemly post. Surely it must be that you, also, have an evil twin. I feel compelled to say, though I acknowledge that it is none of my business, that I don't think the fact that your privacy has been violated on this thread, as it has by Ish, in my opinion, is an excuse for your posting this sanctimonious personal attack on Edwarda. That was beyond transgressive, in my opinion. And in the opinion of the OED, it is also inaccurate. The "violation of the marriage bed" that is adultery is a violation by the married party, not the single one. If a married person has voluntary sexual intercourse with an unmarried one, it is, "technically," according to the OED, "single adultery." If two persons married to others have sexual intercourse, it is "double adultery." The "single" party referred to in the first instance is the married one. In the case of Edwarda, if you are set on condemning her in biblical language, you may wish to call her a fornicator, as she is unmarried and yet has a lover. But then you and I have also committed fornication, haven't we? As has everyone reading these words, I suspect. So it is not much of a condemnation. It is judgmental, but has no sensible content. Edwarda is a single woman who has no contract requiring fidelity. (As for Edwarda's lover, you don't know enough about his circumstances, in my opinion, to wax judgmental about him.) I feel bad about this, because we're friends, Cobe. But you succeeded in shocking me enough so that I had to say something or I wouldn't be able to sleep.