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: The Philosopher who wrote (25189)	8/29/2001 6:13:02 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I would also note, in passing, with great pleasure that X has admitted in the past having insulted people, but has now recognized the error of her ways and feels "terrible" about it. Message 16276310 About that swampland...... JLA

To: The Philosopher who wrote (25189)	8/29/2001 6:14:23 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Of course Chris you have an excellent point. I would like to point out, however, that it is cluckish to deny long standing convention, such as labeling a turd a turd; for example. I do not consider it an insult to call a turd a turd when I see a turd or to note that it has a disagreeable odor. A cluck would likely accuse me of victimizing the turd. There is the intimidation factor as well; wherein cluckants tend toward attempts at thought supersession. In such cases, it is simply rational (not insulting) to call bull shat...right? Actually in the case of clucks the claim of insults are typically bull shat attempts to play victim for calculated effect. Still, I am willing to give it a look see.