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 : G&K Investing for Curmudgeons -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Apollo who wrote (8043)	11/10/2000 10:52:54 AM
From: Dr. Id	Respond to of 22706

Without slander, personal attacks, or name-calling. That's been the common theme in my posts the last day or two. That's all. Maybe you should take your even-handed, reasonable and objective view to a thread that would appreciate it. That view is without value here. And to use no name-calling? Whats with that? Dr.Id@dontforgetwhereyouare.com

To: Apollo who wrote (8043)	11/10/2000 7:12:40 PM
From: EnricoPalazzo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 22706

The main call I've made on this thread, in a few posts, has been that of dispassionate, factually-based, balanced observations. Without slander, personal attacks, or name-calling. To paraphrase GWB, if you think I've been engaging in slander, personal attacks, or name-calling, I think you've misread me. I really do. I've been remarkably pleased to see hundreds of messages on this very topic, not a single one of which I thought was rude, intentionally misleading, or at all inappropriate. This is particularly impressive given that many of us care very deeply about the outcome, in addition to the sanctity of the democratic system. I did think many of them contained factual errors, or errors of judgment, and I pointed this out. Sounds rather curmudgeonly to me. You, for instance, seemed to imply that the candidates are equally advantaged by nepotism, and that claiming otherwise is politically motivated. I disagreed, and said so. While I happen to believe quite strongly that Gore is the better candidate, and that Gore is more right on the present issue, I honestly don't think this is due to bias. I'm generally pretty intellectually honest. E.g. from a policy perspective, I'm very socially liberal, but I agreed with almost everything Robert Bork ever said, from a legal standpoint. If I thought a revote was legally inappropriate in this case, I would, like tekboy, say so.