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 (75972)	3/24/2000 3:28:00 PM
From: CharleyMike	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

In an instance where conflict is easily avoidable, and there is no compelling reason to court it, the onus is on the offender, it seems to me...... Then, if what I perceive to be your exaggerated sensitivity and lack of tolerance offends me, do you mean that it is your responsibility to correct your attitude?

To: Neocon who wrote (75972)	3/24/2000 7:10:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I know this is ancient history, but... In an instance where conflict is easily avoidable, and there is no compelling reason to court it, the onus is on the offender, it seems to me...... If I were a vegetarian wh objected to the mere sight of others eating meat, would the onus be on others to avoid eating meat around me, or would the onus be on me to avoid imposing my bizarre quirk on others? I would say that unless a breastfeeding woman is clearly trying to give offense, the "offender" would be the person demanding that she desist from engaging in a practice that is entirely natural, normal, and accepted practice.