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: Rambi who wrote (23482)	8/20/2001 6:13:29 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I've never before noticed anything hypocritical in your postings...although I haven't read much of your stuff. Pulling out posts written on other threads with totally different "thread zeitgeists", if you will, to try to reinforce a desired image of someone regardless of the truth, is just poor form. I am appalled at the hours you and Neo must have spent looking for this "evidence"." Everyone was repeatedly chastised by E who had been encouraged by you to do exactly this. The posts that Neo provided were specifically by X to brees. "Do you really want to spend your free time pursuing someone who isn't even here posting?" The only person persuing/championing this subject is E (who is being encouraged by you). "And even if she were here, isn't what you're doing just granting a great deal of importance and weight to her views? "If nothing else, this exercise has supported my belief that X has a lot of power in her writing and opinions. Is that why YOU and E are trying to make much of nothing? This is E's and YOUR issue. The right wing folk here are simply being responsive...responsible, as usual. Hello, brees

To: Rambi who wrote (23482)	8/20/2001 6:53:12 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

proffered as some sort of PROOF that X lacks values or concern for human life, Uh, no. proffered only as evidence that someone else who read those, who believed that she meant what she said, could legitimately interpret them as indicating a lack of concern for justice or human values (not just life.) I have been quite clear, I hope, multiple times that I'm not signing on to what brees said. I have been equally clear, I hope, multiple times that there is a basis in the record for brees putting forth the statements he did. Whether they were right or wrong I'm not saying. But they were justified by a reasonable interpretation of the history of her posts, assuming her to have been truthful, and ssuming that brees's post was made with the standard of analysis which is customary and usual on SI (we're not writing precise doctoral dissertations here, guys, nor spending hours finding footnotes for every fourth word). Within that context, within the acceptable standard of discourse common to discussions on SI, the criticism of brees was, IMO, misguided. That doesn't mean he was right. That does mean I think his comment was not unreasonably unfair. And it was, frankly, IMO a lot fairer and nicer than some things X said back in her heyday of meanness.

To: Rambi who wrote (23482)	8/20/2001 6:55:43 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I am appalled at the hours you and Neo must have spent looking for this "evidence". Do you really want to spend your free time pursuing someone who isn't even here posting? I can't speak for Neo. I'm not pursuing X. Not at all. I'm trying to work with E to clarify what is and is not fair comment in the context of an SI political thread. X is only relevant to this as the author of a body of posts and subject of others, not as a person. This really has nothing to do with X or who or what she is, and everything to do, IMO at least, with what is fair comment on SI.

To: Rambi who wrote (23482)	8/20/2001 7:07:21 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

It is not becoming. I am sad. You're not alone. I suppose I'm as guilty as any of keeping this going, but I wish it would just stop and we could get on to other topics. So I'll start one. Or, rather, renew one. One of my duties as a lawyer is to read the advance sheets -- the reports of appellate court decisions that are distributed in paper prior to their formal publication. I do this while I'm working out. Today I read a case the facts of which disgusted me. But to understand the point I'm about to make, it's necessary for me to get into some very nasty stuff.. This is the father of a 13 day (yes, day, not month or year) old daughrer who was accused of child abuse and sexual assault. He confessed. He admitted that at various times over several hours (not all at once in a single fit of anger) he had hit his daughter on the head, hit her a couple of times in the stomach, picked her up by the leg and thrown her several feet onto a couch, had used a white plastic spoon to stab into her vagina and rectum, and had injected lamp oil into her IV shunt using a syringe that was supposed to be used for her injections to treat the infection that she had been under treatment for in the hospital before being released home. She survived. There is no indication that there were drugs or alcohol involved, though there may have been. But there was no mention of them in the case report. Now the question: what is an appropriate punishment for this father? Is this a case where there should be a death penalty or not? If not, what should his punishment be?

To: Rambi who wrote (23482)	8/20/2001 7:50:09 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You're right, Rambi. The pursuit of X has gone on for far too long. I think it's a travesty that any of us who like and respect her (and today that number has included you, me, E, Karen, CR, Steve and brees) would find ourselves in the position of being asked to defend whether she values things like truth and justice. LOL! A laughable request from small hearts and minds. Don't waste your time with them.

To: Rambi who wrote (23482)	8/20/2001 9:56:44 PM
From: E	Respond to of 82486

I see you wrote this almost four hours ago but i missed it until just now. You are just so much the voice of good-natured sanity, to me. That was the most surreal moment of an intellectually quite surreal day, wasn't it? The black humor about eating the neighbors being taken literally. But it all worked out as we knew it would. There was no evidence that X had ever done what brees said she had. Maybe if they'd had SI in Salem, they wouldn't have burned all those women!