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: E who wrote (23363)	8/20/2001 2:36:58 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

It was not presented as a quote.....

To: E who wrote (23363)	8/20/2001 2:43:19 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"It was, further, an unfair characterization" No it wasn't. "presented as a quote No it wasn't. "Why defend false attributions? Good question. No defense is needed for the accurate statement made by me. You however have been defending the false attributions you tried to attach to me for...wow!!!

To: E who wrote (23363)	8/20/2001 2:49:12 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Because X has never, ever 'mentioned' a distaste for justice. Or for principle. Or for human values. As I posted to you, at one time in the past you seemed to have concerns about her concepts of justice, and there seems to be at least some question in what I posted to you about her taste for human values. You will recall, I trust, that I posted to you the exact posts in which you you expressed (no quote marks here, my interpretation, which I think the post links I earlier gave you will support as accurate) your concern that she was quite content to have innocent people put to death by the death penalty as long as the innocent persons were not more than 30% of the persons put to death. This may or may not constitute a distaste for justice. But you seemed to indicate at the time that you thought it did. I also posted the links to you to posts in which she said she supported cannibalism and headhunting. Now I could be totally wrong about this, but I must say I think those could be construed, not totally unfairly, as a distaste for human values (though a taste for human flesh). Again, I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with brees's comment. I am intentionally not doing so. What I AM saying, simply, is that prior to your writing the post I am responding to, you were given links to posts of X which would, I think, raise in a reasonable person's mind some sense that perhaps it was not unfair to say that X had expressed a distaste for justice and for human values. If you think those posts do NOT support such a reasonable conclusion, perhaps you will say why. Publicly. Thank you.