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: greenspirit who wrote (149427)	5/29/2001 7:59:10 PM
From: E	Respond to of 769670

Michael, I answered your questions, which is what I understood was the quid pro quo for getting answers to mine. So will you agree to answer mine now, or not?

To: greenspirit who wrote (149427)	5/29/2001 8:02:03 PM
From: E	Respond to of 769670

You are right about one thing. In a certain Michael-like way. What you wrote is that I posted that article on "NUMEROUS THREADS IN ORDER TO GET ATTENTION." (caps mine.) Did you mean two (2)? But Michael, all you had to do was say "I meant, by numerous, two", when I objected to your false assertion that I had posted it on "numerous threads." and, following the assertion that I had posted it on numerous threads to get attention, you referred to my "motivation in posting the article multiple times." So the way in which you are right is that in saying that I had posted the article "on numerous threads," you didn't mean at all that I had posted it on "multiple threads," evidently, so it was wrong of me to understand it that way; and in any case, it was certainly an error to put in quotation marks, which would indicate that it was a single phrase, both the words "numerous times" and the word "multiple." I apologize for doing that, and assure you that if I'd understood that two was numerous, I wouldn't have gotten confused and put that word "multiple" inaccurately in the same quotes with "numerous," which means, I now understand, "two." I'm a bit puzzled about why, if two (2) threads is, to you, "numerous" threads, you didn't just say so. You could have written this so easily!: "E, two threads is numerous threads. Numerous threads wasn't intended by me to imply multiple threads. I meant you'd posted it on two threads to get attention and had posted it three times here." Then any discomfiture at what you took to be that "threat" of mine (the post with "hehe" and "scary music" and the words "haunt" and "Pleeeeeeeze" and "teeeeeny weeeny" and "Hint! It's a single digit!" in it!) would have been resolved instanter! BTW, you implied I had threatened you or others in the past. I asked you to give one example, because I have never threatened anyone. Would you do that now please, or apologize for your error?

To: greenspirit who wrote (149427)	5/29/2001 8:05:06 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

If I find the ProLife exchange, will you admit that your claim that I "haunted" Prolife for "weeks," as opposed to simply doing some very good research using a prenatal science link provided by him, that proved, after days, Michael, not "weeks," of Proflife's repeatedly denying that he had been perpetrating an outrageous lie for years, that he had, indeed, been doing just that. ProLife was very discomfited to learn that he had been fooled by a particular pamphlet for many years. Sixteen, eighteen, something like that. And to give him credit, he acknowledged he had been disseminating disinformation. (On the other hand, it must be said that he also wrote words very close to this: "What's so wrong about lying to SAVE LIVES?!!") (Is that the way you feel about the budget lie, Michael? What's so wrong about it?) Why is it that the one who posted a lie (innocently, believing it was a truth), and kept insisting for a few days (not "weeks") on its veracity, is not the haunter rather than the hauntee? He was promulgating a lie. I corrected it, even though it took a few days (not "weeks.") Even you seem to admit I detected a grotesque, in fact comical, lie in his pamphlet and managed to provide proof that convinced both him and you. Everyone, in fact. Commendations would, in most circumstances, be in order. Not a false characterization of the truth seeker as the haunter and the admitted (innocent) lie-promulgator as the hauntee. Do you think i should have let him continue to believe (and promulgate) that big lie? If so, why? It was an agenda-based intentional lie designed to fool people like ProLife and those to whom he spread it. Why, Michael, should I have not taken it seriously enough to prove that? Why should I not be commended for doing so?

To: greenspirit who wrote (149427)	5/29/2001 8:22:21 PM
From: E	Respond to of 769670

Please let me know if I may, now that I have answered each of the questions on your list, provide a list not of new questions for you, but of questions i've already asked and gotten no responses whatever on. I understood that the reason you have been so very unresponsive, and have answered in the "manner" you have (I think that is your noun), is because I hadn't, formerly, answered your questions. Now I have. Thanks. If you want, after you've answered my list, we can discuss, or not, some other topics. I say this because I am wondering if you might digress into other subjects, making discussing them a new pre-condition. But it is wrong of me to be suspicious, isn't it? I apologize again.