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 (25214)	8/29/2001 10:08:14 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Suggesting he post it there wasn't an endorsement -- all it was was saying that if he's going to quote people who were involved in a discussion, he should do it on the thread where they posted, and see what their responses are. Some of the people he quoted don't even post here any more, and presumably aren't reading this thread regularly, so wouldn't see what he had posted or how he had used their words. They should have been given that chance, as you had and took.

To: E who wrote (25214)	8/29/2001 10:19:23 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Hi E, I read the post of yours to which I'm responding and took CH of ignore long enough to read what you're referring to. This has become the man's MO, unfortunately. It's gotten to the point where even a tangential involvement in a conversation with a number of us is taken as an opportunity for fact-twisting and sly putdowns for days later. Here is the entire paragraph of my statement about "The Yellow Wallpaper" which was taken out of context: I've read what you all have said though, and I agree with the idea of her madness as strength. Her madness was quite symbolic to me of her own desire to escape the stringent rules of behavior (ie. the horrifying and nonsensical patterns in the wallpaper) expected of her as a doting wife, even as a sick person. Brees may not have understood my point. I'd be surprised if CH didn't understand, and yet he is content to let brees' misrepresentations stand. How intellectually dishonest. How desperate.

To: E who wrote (25214)	8/30/2001 8:23:32 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Christopher, do you not see what he's done? Really? You participated in that literary discussion. Do you not think brees's comment "Madness as strength...harummph" is idiotic? Did you not understand that was meant by that comment -- "Madness as strength" -- was an interpretation of the author's symbolism contained in that story? Maybe brees learned his lesson and was reading your post with unbending literalness. After all, we wasted quite a bit of bandwidth establishing that we are not allowed to interpret anything, 'cordin' to you, 'round these parts..... JLA