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 (24627)	8/24/2001 4:42:03 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

The numbers issue has nothing to do with it, and is not unfair, imo. I'm here because it's fun, and can leave when the time it takes outweighs the fun. (It may be a bit unfair if I am taken to task for posting more, as an individual, than those who are answering only one person; but that's only happened a couple of times.) It would help me to understand whether you truly think that what brees wrote was 'accurate,' in fact, not to mention honest, if you replied to the three questions that follow this scenario. I note that Bill has been honest enough to answer No, No, and No, though thinking it okay to do what the blonde did in a chat room, and that so far (at least as far as i've read) no one else on your side has been willing to answer the questions: (It may be helpful because we all agree about Condit's nature, while we don't about X's.) I know you're making a joke about what brees did (Thanks, I enjoyed it!), but when a post-game talking head, some blond i've seen before, actually said Condit had done that, I was amazed. I wonder if she had gotten the idea from this board or from someone who reads this board and been persuaded that enough people who didn't see the interview would believe it to make it worthwhile saying. She didn't use 'distaste,' or 'repeatedly,' she used 'mention,'dislike of,' and 'truth.' I know Condit is a liar, but that astonished me as much as what brees said did. I almost fell off the bed! The moderator didn't let it pass unchallenged, and the woman who said it had no defenders (nobody said 'fair comment,' for example) and she immediately retracted. I was relieved to see that-- it reminded me there are sane people out there. I wonder if there is anyone here who thinks the retraction was proper, or do you all take the 'extrapolation' and 'conclusion' case you take here and feel the talking head's tossed-in remark, "Condit kept mentioning his dislike of the truth..." should have been allowed to stand unchallenged, and if it was challenged, been defended by Condit's critics? 1) Was she right to say that? 2) Was the moderator wrong to challenge the conclusion she had drawn and presented as an attribution? 3) Were the allies of the speaker wrong not to defend her statement as 'fair comment,' and 'conclusion' based on 'extrapolation'?

To: jlallen who wrote (24627)	8/24/2001 4:44:28 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

I will argue E's case, now: Neo, you said that you thought that what brees said was substantially true, and yet you cannot provide proof that X characterized herself in such a manner. You translate what he said into something more nuanced, admit that he spoke without adequate qualification, and yet defend the original post. Is it your contention that what he meant was obvious enough that he was not speaking an untruth, or was his post clearly misleading and demonizing? Would someone reading the post gather that X had spoken of herself in the terms he used, and therefore that she was affirming her amorality? If you claim they would not, explain to me why not? And if they would get that impression from the post, how can it be other than a lie? After all, brees knows that X is not without values.... Now, I will answer: As I told you, brees posted the comment to X, and I think it was obviously a provocative comment, since few people would assume that X had referred to herself in those terms. Therefore, I thought it obvious that he was claiming that that is what her comments amounted to. He would better have used the term "expressed", but sometimes brees makes poor word choices. I explained that I thought that she had expressed contempt or distaste for certain ideas and those who held them, including that there was discernable truth, that there were intelligible principles for morality, that there was such a thing as justice apart from what people happen to call justice in any given time and place, and that there were universal human values. It is true that brees omitted the qualifications, but I think that anyone could figure out that he meant it in the sense of there being "truth, justice, principles" in themselves, and not merely according to custom. I didn't think this was hard to understand, and therefore I did not think anyone would be misled, and therefore I did not think there could be any intention of misleading........