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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (150385)	6/3/2001 2:22:41 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

So true Tom, and the funny thing is she has been doing it for so long I've come to expect it. Anyone, and I mean anyone can, if they really want to look for something to be offended about, find an inference here or there in someones post to be offended over. In the case of the latest E outrage, my opinion is she didn't really want to discuss economic budgetary issues related to her article, so she elected instead to get into a personal back-and-forth sophistic language argument, and pretend she was somehow offended in the process. It does muddy the water of issue based analysis and opinions, but that's about it. She's taken politically correct speech to a new art form, and gotten it in her head that if someone doesn't accept her mandate of proper posting, they are all liars. I've read enough of her postings to recognize the motivation behind it is simple political disagreement. It may be cloaked under another umbrella, but it's a transparent as glass to me.

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (150385)	6/3/2001 2:42:09 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Ah, the magnificent complexity you represent. These are my words that you don't appear to understand, though it isn't complex at all: To:Thomas A Watson who wrote (150354) From: E Sunday, Jun 3, 2001 9:08 AM View Replies (2) \| Respond to 150362 of 150392 Just so we have it clear that "something along the lines of saying" that I had close or "intimate relations" with African women was your way of communicating something I said that was non sexual. Oddly enough. Something that you misinterpreted some time ago as sexual, and were corrected regarding. I am not taking you to task for your original misinterpretation, startling as it was. I do object to you, now that you have been informed that I am neither male nor a lesbian nor promiscuous, and knowing this full well, posting yesterday that I had "responded something along the lines of saying that you had close or intimate relations with many African women while you were in Africa." It presented an implication you knew to be false. And, twt, it did it just day before yesterday.