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: jlallen who wrote (18161)	5/4/2000 10:15:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Your comment disagrees with Neocon's. You can't mean that, it would be too traumatic for you, surely. You guys apparently think I'm Queen Shit, with your constant elistism and snob jibes and vocabulary-ridiculing and "great unwashed" type references. I have to laugh. I'm not even a col grad. I got pregnant instead, did not get an abortion, and could never afford to go back to school because I've always had to earn money to help support my children and struggling writer-husband. So blow it out your upper middle class ass, Mr. Lawyer.

To: jlallen who wrote (18161)	5/5/2000 12:09:00 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

JLA, I just came upon haqi's post answering the question I put to Neocon. Neocon and I were right. There were two possible interpretations. Neo was wrong in his (declared) belief that the intimidation was unintended by haqi. Because Haqi has now, frankly and honestly, acknowledged the entirely obvious. He was trying to intimidate me. It is not easy to intimidate me. The attempt to do so angers me, and, most of all, I distinctly did not like the specter of being followed to "other threads" as his "enemy," with "swift retribution" exacted if I failed to do as he wished. And so I made the threat of this disappear by forcing its denial. (Once he had denied any such implication, he could hardly "stalk" or harass me on other threads, I realized.) Haqi alone had to deny it to make the threat go away; as it happened, you and Neocon and e-Bill and PROLIFE and others decided to join in the denial. Which was shameful of you all, IMHO. I had only read the posts linked to mine, so had no idea until just now how much abuse and ridicule had been heaped upon me here, and by how many posters, over this issue that haqi has now so nicely resolved. Quite remarkable, really, given that I was only pointing out the obvious. Thank you for your honesty, haqihana. I will always remember it. To: E who wrote (18103) From: Neocon Thursday, May 4, 2000 1:27 PM ET Respond to Post # 18109 of 18169 It couldn't be that in the heat of anger he expressed himself poorly, but must be that he was intending to intimidate. Why call me shameless for advancing the more benign interpretation unless you consider it obvious that somehow he meant it in the worse light? Yes, Neocon, it was obvious.