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 : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (8614)	7/16/2000 11:49:17 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

>Personally, my response to Vince would go something like this... I don't doubt you heard what you heard on the radio, but I would have to see more evidence to believe it actually happened. < How about "I don't doubt you believe you heard what you think you heard on the radio..." Poor Michael. As I am on "ignore" you will not see my wise words, or will you? But I said essentially what you said. I agreed there was all kinds of crap on the radio- but I said I couldn't believe it without some other verification. Vince- then- decided to use the word liar. A word I have not and did not use. But since you are not following the conversation- since you couldn't be reading my posts- HOW would you know what the responses to Vince were??? I mean they were mostly MINE. Or ARE you reading them??? And merely saying you aren't? Heeheehee. Well I know what I think you're doing. I'm sure you don't believe you are reading my posts.

To: greenspirit who wrote (8614)	7/17/2000 5:01:45 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9127

you appear to have completely accepted the mostly benign point of view as fact, and discounted the other as total hyperbole. An overstatement, but let's pretend it isn't. Let's look at the articles and check the signs and symptoms. From the first two paragraphs of the original report: ...an incredible story... ...showed how homosexuals are recruiting children in the public schools of Massachusetts... ...This shocking story... ...trying to convert straight teenagers into homosexuals... And this lovely one from the end: One wonders if it was like American GIs who first approached the concentration camps. When I see somebody wielding that kind of tabloid-style sensationalism, my first reaction is that there is an agenda being pursued, and that there is probably more going on than meets the eye. I often react the same way to the wilder exposes of the environmental movement, among others. There were also serious lapses, the most serious being that the citations of inflammatory material did not mention the critical issue of whether the dialogue in question was initiated by a workshop leader or an attendee. When such information is omitted from a story you have to consider the possibility that it is being held back because discussing it would dilute the point that the author wants to work. That sort of emotion-loaded writing, in pursuit of any agenda, is something for which I have no respect. It is almost always, in my experience, accompanied by distortions, inaccuracies, and deliberate simplifications. Any time I see such writing - and I seldom see it, because I do not frequent the places where it is seen - I look for a second point of view, if I don't dismiss the piece out of hand. The article X cited, on the other hand, was quite professionally done and far more intelligent: the author was completely up front about her affiliations, her purposes, and the gaps in her information. She didn't pretend not to have an agenda, but put it up front so that readers could take it into consideration while forming their opinions. It seemed, all in all, to be a far more credible piece of work than the rant to which it responded. Score one for the defense, I'd say, except that few who read the prosecutor's speech will ever bother to read the defense. Personally, my response to Vince would go something like this... I don't doubt you heard what you heard on the radio, but I would have to see more evidence to believe it actually happened. Maybe, maybe not. I got a good giggle out of wondering what would happen if X or I were to pop over to a contentious argument on feelies and expect the assembled crowd to accept as evidence a story that we thought we'd heard on the radio a few years back. What do you think the reaction would be? Nothing nearly so polite as what you wrote, I'm sure. SI is SI, and one thing we all learn on SI is that it's not a place where you can stick your neck out and expect not to be chopped. Pulling out a story like that without a citation to support it is argument's equivalent to a boxer leading with his chin, or an ice hockey player carrying the puck across the opposing blue line with his head down. You do it, you get stung. Rules of the game. We've all had it happen once or twice, and it's not fatal. My personal feeling is that Vince is showing himself to be a wee bit thin-skinned; I've noticed him dishing out his share of abuse, now he gets a little back. Tant pis. You know what they say about the heat and the kitchen. Do note that all of the challenges were directed at material which Vince brought into the discussion, not at Vince personally. The same can't be said about some of the discussions on this thread, where participants seem quite determined to win entry to the "juvenile excess" category of the Guinness book.

To: greenspirit who wrote (8614)	7/17/2000 9:35:56 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

I wasn't there, and neither were you, so I am not about to claim one version of events is correct and another is incorrect. On the other hand, you appear to have completely accepted the mostly benign point of view as fact, and discounted the other as total hyperbole. Hi Michael. I'm feeling philosophic today and I've been ruminating the question of difference in perceptions. When I was a programmer trainee some 30 years ago, I fell in love with the word, default. I used it incessantly. Still do. After observing that people didn't know what I meant, I looked it up in the dictionary and discovered that the word was not there in the context I was using. I was using the word, default, to mean whatever it is that you do in the absence of some influence to the contrary. Off and on over the years, while continuing to use the word, I've checked to see if my meaning had made its way into the dictionary. Today, for the first time, I found this in Websters: 5 : a selection automatically used by a computer program in the absence of a choice made by the user. At least now the computer usage has arrived as option 5. Maybe mine will appear soon. Back when I fell in love with this word, I formed a premise that differences between people were rooted in different senses of the default for that situation. Take, for example, exiting an elevator. Some uninformed gentlemen try to squish against the walls to allow ladies to exit first thinking they're being polite. Male devotees of Emily Post exit first because manners so dictate. Some practical and egalitarian souls think the people in the front of the elevator, regardless of gender, should exit first. Some people think that the default for any occasion is "me first." They all think they're acting appropriately based on their perception of the default and that everyone else must be a jerk. Another example is the differences you and I have had over various government actions. You automatically attribute government output as another Clinton lie. I automatically attribute government output as bureaucracy behaving like bureaucracy. So, in situations where we do not have all the information, we have entirely different senses of what is most plausible. One reason I hang out in places like this is because I enjoy observing these differences play out. I'm sure you've heard the saying that the right explanation is usually the simplest one. Usually, but not always. The question becomes how much energy do you want to put into investigating the myriad possibilities when a simple, plausible explanation is available. For example, lets say you're in bed, asleep, at 5 a.m. You are awakened to a thump on your front porch. What could it be? It could be a burglar trying to get into your house. It could be a UFO landing in your front yard. It could be the twin you never knew you had knocking on your front door. Or it could be the newspaper being delivered. Most people would assume it's the newspaper and go right back to sleep. That choice could be fatal, but most people would make it. Others wouldn't be able to fall asleep and would need to get up and look around. Still others would call the police and say that a UFO had landed. My default is to accept a benign, plausible explanation until and unless I have reason to think otherwise. All of which is apropos of nothing much. Like I said, just ruminating. Karen