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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: haqihana who wrote (17963)	5/2/2000 4:43:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You now claim that your threats were merely to "argue" with me? That that was the "appropriate action" you would take in "swift retaliation" after you would "declare [me] an enemy"? Arguing with me? A patently disingenuous claim. You now claim that "on this, or any other thread" does not mean that you have threatened to follow me to other threads I might visit and engage in some unspecified form of treatment suitable to a declared enemy there, but MERELY to argue with me on other threads "where you happen to be," and only if I out-of-the-blue began criticizing PROLIFE there? A patently disingenuous claim. and you now claim you were to do this merely and only IF I attack PROLIFE on some other thread (a thing I have never done) and IF you just happen to be there anyway? A patently disingenuous claim. Haqihana, you are clearly uncomfortable with it being on record here that you have threatened to "declare" me your "enemy" and "take swift retaliation," against me on SI if I continue to call attention to PROLIFE's logical and ethical impairments here, and so are attempting to revise the record. But history is history, and yours happens to be in print. <<<A threat is warning of intention to inflict something harmful. Now, where, and how, did I say I planned to harm you??>>> "If you persist in the type of vindictive posts you have been sending, I will consider you an enemy and take appropriate action in the way of words on this, or any other, thread. If you want to ignore PROLIFE, that is an option open to you, but any more of what I have been reading, will bring swift retaliation." Wiggle and deny and twist and pretend that the entire import of your threat (oh wait, you didn't make any threat, did you? wink wink) was to argue with me if I attack PROLIFE-- unprecedentedly-- on another thread on which you just happen also to be. But wiggle as you will, you have revealed your nature here as PROLIFE has revealed his, and your disingenuous denials and obfuscations are the most revealing of all. Be happy. When you threaten someone with declaring them an enemy and taking swift retaliation and you succeed with your threat in controlling their expression, you have had the very victory you sought. You note, I hope, that I address or even mention the name of PROLIFE only in response to a post from him or you? I assume that since you two are now in total control of whether his name or attributes are ever mentioned by me, that this will win me leniency from swift retaliation? Message 13537598

To: haqihana who wrote (17963)	5/2/2000 7:31:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

>If you are so smart, why, so far, has no one else agreed with your assessment of PROLIFE's mental deficiencies. Maybe because they exist nowhere except in your <unnecessary pejoratives> mind.< I can give a reason or two. I've followed the argument for a few beats and have seen how polarized it got. While I agree with E's points pretty much to the letter, I would have drawn the line at suggesting that PROLIFE might be retarded. Imo there ain't no call for that sort of thing. So for someone to pipe up in E's defense here would be kind of like taping a big PUNCH ME sign to [his] chest. The irony of the situation is that E has been technically fastidious throughout this argument. Everything she said shows that she is a careful thinker and listener. But how she responded got a bit aggressive toward the end there (in my assessment) - and since it is a basic human trait to associate the message with the messenger, folks started taking stuff personal, and acting on it. E might have made allowances for that, but otoh I'm asking you to consider that she believes in what she was posting as strongly as PROLIFE believed in what he was advancing as fact, even after it had been unmasked as, uhm, not making good sense. OK, "PUNCH ME"