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 : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (46559)	2/7/2000 7:31:00 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

EEEEEEK. How can you so totally twist what I said and why do you insist that everything be adversarial??? Do you do it intentionally? I'm completely puzzled. This is when discussion for me becomes time-consuming and silly--- because now I have to go back and correct what you've said I said. The comment I made about insulting me had to do with your implication that Civil Rights sprang into being when the bill was signed as if it had no gestation and no one ever heard of it until then, so how could it possibly have anything to do with the Commemoration, Rambi, you ignorant slut? Which is what my original question WAS after I saw the date it was raised, becuase I hadn't KNOWN when it was raised, and given the events of that particular time, I asked, on learning the time frame, whether it could have been related-- an innocent, and maybe even intelligent question. I thought the article was interesting for a couple of reasons: One--the description of the events surrounding the Commemoration-- A couple of other quotes from the article: The day the Confederate flag went up over the State House, the opening ceremonies of the centennial in Charleston were marred by controversy. Newspapers reported the open and ugly feuding between South Carolina and the national Centennial Commission, calling it "the second battle of Fort Sumter." "I am proud of the job that South Carolina is doing [in regard to segregation]," Thurmond said, "and I urge that we continue in this great tradition no matter how much outside agitation may be brought to bear on our people and our state." It has only been 38 years since the flag went up, but its defenders seem to have lost their short-term memory. Dr. Hollis calls them "historical revisionists." He said there should be no denying that white supremacy was a vital aspect of this state's political will in 1861, just as it was in 1961. And there can be no separating the banners from this history. The second thought I had on reading it, was that while Hollis says he himself was against the raising of the flag, he didn't feel like arguing with the UDC ladies. If they really saw no connection between raising the flag and the current climate, they were either very naive, or they really did see no connection of the flag with the issues, or they were disingenuous as hell. "They would argue that the war wasn't fought over slavery but states' rights. That's ridiculous. Without the slavery issue South Carolina would not have seceded. Now c'mon, Amicus, you gotta admit that the appearance of John May, the chairman, in a Confederate uniform for every meeting, calling himself Mr Confederacy, is amusing and pretty extreme. If he were alive, he would be running against Dr. Michael Hill for President of the New Confederacy. You make me feel as if I have taken some side AGAINST you, when this just isn't true. There is a show on this week (20-20? saw the ad, and I'll probably forget to watch it)about racism, and the flag, yada, yada. My guess is if I see it, I'll sit there being FURIOUS with "the other side". You are too good a friend for me to want to continue trying to discuss this. It's just too inflammatory and I don't enjoy posting my thoughts where I will be disparaged for trying to learn and work through an issue. So let's talk about something else for a while.