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: Neocon who wrote (150610)	6/4/2001 1:00:19 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

It isn't necessary to take anyone's "account of matters" on faith, Neocon. Anything in all the accounts is documented. And -- I am not the one who declines to back up my assertions! If you have any specific question about any issue raised or charge made by me, I am not like them: I answer. I explain. If I am wrong, I apologize. There is an inherent problem (which is also the entertainment, I acknowledge), built into arguing with those whose stock in trade is making unsubstantiated assertions and characterizations. Just to take what we've just talked about: 'admitted' is one word. To confront its scurrilous implications, though, takes many more. 'Intimate relations' is two words. Explicating the deception, and documenting the history, takes many more -- and even after I've used many more, you come on and seem to be under the impression that twt's introduction of the phrase took place when he was still under the impression I was a male. And then there's the many-against-one aspect. There's a lot to answer. About my 'account of matters.' Take just those two matters i just mentioned, why don't we? To see whether you will be fair in this matter. Do you agree with me about what the word 'admit' connotes? If you do, I will show you how its use by Mike was dishonest, and he can tell you where i['m wrong, lol. (The lol is because he takes no responsibility for what he says, and declines to answer when asked to.) Do you agree with me about what the phrase 'intimate relations' connotes? If you do, I will show you, if you doubt it, that twt introduced it here not when he was confused about my gender, but when he knew that i am female, straight, married, and was talking about personal friends, not personal sexual experiences. What you have done in response to my post to you is to evade the issues raised in favor of characterizing me negatively. This works handily, if you want it to, to prevent you from having to admit the intellectually shabby behavior of your pals. Do answer the two bolded questions above. Prediction: You won't.

To: Neocon who wrote (150610)	6/4/2001 1:07:26 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

I have an idea of something you offer me the incentive, not to mention excuse, for doing. I shall bookmark some of these exchanges, so, when I have the time, which isn't now, and if I'm still in the mood, I can go through and compile a List of Deceits for you, documenting each characterization. We can consider this me making a reservation, sort of sticking my foot in the door, because time marches on and this will be history by the time I am able to get to it. Everyone will have to forgive me, please, for my tardiness in undertaking the project.