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: one_less who wrote (19962)	7/31/2001 3:06:36 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Brees, I assume it was intended as a mild insult, as well. I don't see what that has to do with the point. My post was about the statements that Steven made that I agreed with. I couldn't very well agree with that one because I never read the book. There's nothing complicated about this. I agree with Steven on all the other points and I wouldn't find my kids a date , so I don't see any reason for you to conclude that he would, either. If you want to insult him back, that's another matter. You should do it in a way that doesn't distort the substance of the discussion. Speaking of the discussion. I'll review the bidding. We started out with the question of whether an abstinence only program would work for sex ed. We seem to have some general agreement that kids shouldn't have sex and that sex outside of a caring relationship is iffy. We are nowhere near settling on what form of abstinence message might be suitable for public policy--we don't even have a proposal on the table--let alone whether it should be supplemented by plan B. The closest thing we have to a proposal is JLA's description of a family model but not how that translates into public policy. In other words, we're nowhere. Karen

To: one_less who wrote (19962)	7/31/2001 4:02:50 PM
From: average joe	Respond to of 82486

The problem with multiple partner people is they lose the ability to be intimate. The SI smart set confuse sexual with intimate, there is a big difference between the two.

To: one_less who wrote (19962)	7/31/2001 5:19:32 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

well, I have to call BS on you. Course I have know way of "KNOWING" for sure. So, its just IMO. You just lost a lot of credibility with me, and I hope with others here, too. You're basically calling Karen a liar. If we rank posters on this thread in terms of integrity and honesty, Karen is right up there. She's one of the few poster here who NEVER dissembles, lies, plays word games, etc. If you haven't seen that by now, you're remarkably unastute. If you've seen it but are calling her dishonest anyhow, you're remarkably stupid. Either way, you lose a lot of whatever credibility you had up 'till now. I don't like saying that, because you often agree with me, and I need all the agreeers I can get (if agreeer isn't a word, it should be, and it is now, and it's one of the few if any words in English with the same letter appearing thrice consecutively), but if I have a choice of keeping you friendly to me and opposing false witnessing against other friends here, well, sorry, but you lose.