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: Neocon who wrote (23653)	8/21/2001 10:40:37 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Neo... Why bother? This is a fundamental disagreement and you will not convince E, anymore than E's barrage will cause brees to change his comment.... Time to move on IMO. JLA

To: Neocon who wrote (23653)	8/21/2001 1:36:25 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Interesting, confirming as they do that you are unable to find a single post of X's in which she describes herself as brees untruthfully claimed she did in his post that you and yours have attempted to pretend told the... (presumably morally unrelative) TRUTH! Ah, absolute truth, your favorite! Reminder, since it seems to have slipped your mind: what brees claimed is that X had 'repeatedly mentioned' a 'distaste' she, X, has for such qualities or abstract, noble nouns as the following: 'Truth.' 'Justice.' 'Human values.' 'Principles.' You, Neocon, have repeatedly mentioned* your approval of the argumentation-technique of demonizing an enemy by 'extrapolating,' and drawing bizarre 'conclusions,' and then publicly characterizing the enemy by actually attributing the conclusions you have drawn about her to her, offering the invented 'mentions' as self-characterizations! I repeat: The great efforts you undertook produced not a single 'mention' by X of the 'distaste' for All Things Good and Fine she is claimed to have posted!-- but only links to posts that might have been thought by an unintelligent person to justify drawing personal, tendentious 'conclusions' that could then be usefully placed in the mouth of their enemy-victim and offered to unsuspecting readers as her self-description. *for the irony- and humor-challenged: insert <g> there. EDIT: I see an interesting and amusing post of X's on the LWP. I'll paste it next. I hope she won't mind. I shall ask forgiveness instead of permission!

To: Neocon who wrote (23653)	8/21/2001 1:37:14 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Message 16238974 To:X the Unknown who wrote (441) From: X the Unknown Tuesday, Aug 21, 2001 10:59 AM View Replies (2) \| Respond to of 460 From the ALL X, ALL the TIME station I have been sent the following: Message 16238817 Dear E For your viewing pleasure let me point out that not believing in ABSOLUTES, or liking people who do, does not preclude me (a relativist) from loving my own sense of truth, human values and principles. I believe in truth- although I think you have proved just how RELATIVE and illusive truth can be on the boxing thread. I know what my words say, and yet there are people willing to post for 3 days to argue they mean something OTHER than what I understand them to mean. WOW!!! Could truth be any more relative? I think you come close to understanding what I meant- but not even you understand me perfectly- how could you? How could I understand you perfectly? It should be obvious by now that truth and words are relative, but some people will remain convinced theirs is the only interpretation. FWIW your interpretation of my words is the only one I can understand- since OVER and OVER and OVER again I've mentioned how I detest lying, and hypocrisy, and cruelty - etc. MY human values/principles (which I might add I have great respect for). How Brees could have arrived where he did is a mystery to me E. But he and his friends are convinced they got there. Let us take that as ample proof of relativism and consider the thing DONE.