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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Poet who wrote (1031)	1/15/2001 12:57:23 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Respond to of 82486

Hi Poet, Not a problem, and I do appreciate your comment... I feel the same way as you do about posting at this thread, there are too many readers that have an agenda and no matter what is posted, it's taken way out of context... certainly at another thread, comments are made, but that's to be expected on 'both sides' if I can use that phrase... but, I have made every effort to reserve this thread for serious discussion without abusive language or snide remarks, yet after more than a week of trying to do this, it still comes down to base childishness on the part of other posters... I suspect if this thread is not cleaned up soon enough, that it will wane into the background like so many other threads here at SI... all the above having been said, I want to thank you for your open and frank discussion on the issues over the past week... you and I are living proof that it can be done.....<g> My Best Regards, GZ

To: Poet who wrote (1031)	1/15/2001 1:21:44 PM
From: hobo	Respond to of 82486

I do question just how serious the request for discussion is here when it is accompanied by a post like this, made moments prior to the post to you: Message 15183651; _______________________________________ in the above reference, stated by you here: Message 15184085 I submit to you my post where i clearly proved why would be very easy to question as you did above: (this is a mere reminder) Message 15153641 as for your statement in the post I am making a comment on (the post was not address to me). Well, I really don't think I'm provoking a problem, just commenting on your posts. If they weren't about X, I apologize. you are too generous, remember you already apologized to someone that does not deserve it. i admire you for your generosity and patience. i mean it, i really do. I'm really trying to back away from the interpersonal nastiness and should probably not be posting in the Boxing Ring at all at this point. i agree. no need to waste one's time. it amazes me, (i did not realized this until i checked on the post numbers), how early in the thread the lies and disingenuousness were clearly and rapidly proven. given that, your point is indeed important to bear, there is no point in "discussing" with those who can't be honest. on top of that, to be "discussing" points of shame and dishonor, seems to me rather hypocritical... (again). ROFLMAO. edit__________________________________ p.s.Main Entry: mo·ral·i·ty Pronunciation: m&-'ra-l&-tE, mo- Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties Date: 14th century 1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson 2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct 3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct 4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE m-w.com --------------- Main Entry: 1dis·hon·or Pronunciation: (")di-'sä-n&r also -'zä- Function: noun Etymology: Middle English dishonour, from Middle French deshonor, from des- dis- + honor honor Date: 13th century 1 : lack or loss of honor or reputation 2 : the state of one who has lost honor or prestige : SHAME 3 : a cause of disgrace 4 : the nonpayment or nonacceptance of commercial paper by the party on whom it is drawn synonym see DISGRACE - dis·hon·or·er /-'sän-&r-&r also -'zä-/ noun

To: Poet who wrote (1031)	1/15/2001 1:40:12 PM
From: Mac Con Ulaidh	Respond to of 82486

An off the cuff use of paranoid schzophrenia (nope, can't spell it) as a diagnosis isn't the mark of someone with knowledge. It's a layman's catch all. Speaking of AMA standards, I would think it is a given that it would go against them to say what you really think of a patient in a forum, or maybe at all, where it is likely to get back to them. And then compound it by denying it and questioning the patient's rationality. Great way to deal with paranoia. But is there a standard in the AMA about playing a game with a non-patient by suggesting a diagnosis, even if in jest, then attempting to provoke the person with a disengenious attempt at discussion that will allow them the chance to question their rationality?