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: The Philosopher who wrote (20031)	7/31/2001 6:43:53 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Did your or did you not express skepticism about Karen's statement that she didn't know who Ignatius was? No, I did not. I took her statement that she knew nothing of the book to be truthful. The statement by steven was regarding a book, having "dunce" as the main word in the title, and a main character named Ignatius. The statement by steven was obviously suggestive. The response by Karen was coy and evasive. Karen frequently makes coy and encouraging comments to a leftie who just bashed another poster. She frequently makes a deriding comment to someone who has done same to a leftie. I was raked over the coals last week for saying I got the impression that she enjoys the left camp. Today, she harshly criticised me for comparing jla's comment in contrast to steven wanting his kids to have lots of sexual experience prior to marriage. This is something that steven, in fact, boldly proclaimed and is proud of. I pointed this out and added, if she was bothered by the pointedness or personal affect of my comment on steven's attitude that it was inconsistent with the lack of criticism regarding his earlier slam on me. Now this Austin person comes on line to make uncalled for slams and bash right wingers and she responds with cutsie remarks. She is not one of the dominoes that fall in the hate mail she is one of the kickers who sets them up and likes to see them fall. She thinks everybody just watches the dominoes. Not so. The dishonesty is in denying her role in the left wing bashers camp, and that is the context of my complaint against her and calling her coy BS in pretending not to get it when steven (or x or e or austin or anybody else on the left) goes for blood. The specific instance was the one involving me. "When you said you had no way of KNOWING, what were you referring to?" It was sarcasm. I see clearly where kholt is coming from. She is claiming she can't know about this Ignacio character unless she reads the book. The suggestion from steven was obvious and she can know what it implied. You too for that matter so, kiss off.