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: jlallen who wrote (22315)	8/16/2001 4:33:14 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Let's talk about "obvious." I'm going to show you two statements. Here is the first. It is the statement this post of yours implies brees made, in terms of content and meaning. The bolded words are all yours, taken from your post in which you offer your characterization of bree's post: "Your arguments, X, in support of the validity of "moral relativism" as a concept, cause me to READ IN the THOUGHTS you have expressed certain MEANINGS and to DISTILL them for myself in such a way that I come to a CONCLUSION that your philosophy is inconsistent with my BELIEFS about truth, justice, human values or principles; in fact, I have ARRIVED AT an OPINION that these things are actually distasteful to you." All fair comment, JLA. However, it doesn't even faintly resemble what brees posted. Here is his plain statement about X. "I am sure that truth, justice, human values or principles have nothing to do with it since you've repeatedly mentioned how distasteful such things are to you." So the question is simple and easy to answer. Has X "repeatedly mentioned how distasteful" such things as truth, justice, human values or principles" are? Or did brees just say that she had done that, untruthful though the statement was, to make it look as though X had, in fact... well... repeatedly mentioned how distasteful truth and justice, for example, or principles, or human values, are, to her? Which would be a lie, of course. His post contained the word "spew" in it, too. Perhaps it goes to state of mind, and explains the lie. You know, if you can't find the lie in that, there's really some problem. Say you understand the lie. Don't, please, say because you understand it, it wasn't a lie. Remember, in my first post, I called it dishonest, but didn't use the word 'lie.' I told him i would owe him an apology and retraction if he produced any evidence for the assertion. All he has done since is equivocate, and his friends have tried to call a spade a diamond, too.