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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JustTradeEm who wrote (1197)	9/24/2001 9:45:20 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 281500

Excellent post. Well said. Our Constitution protects the rights of such persons to express the type of opinions we find offensive and from legal retribution for such expressions. However, the Constitution can not protect such persons from the scorn and contempt of patriotic and loyal US citizens, especially in the unprecedented situation which exists at present. JLA

To: JustTradeEm who wrote (1197)	9/24/2001 10:11:28 AM
From: Jill	Respond to of 281500

I think you are misinterpreting me. And I think this should have been a PM. I think my overall stance is expressed pretty well in the last few lines of this post: Message 16373756 What did you think of the Robert Fisk piece that was posted last night? Any grains of truth in it? Anyway if you wish continue, i suggest by PM And I suggested earlier to the thread that everybody on it read Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century, by Jonathan Glover. I've read it twice & just wrote a book review of it. Yale University Press & rave reviews from every paper you respect in this country. And by the way, I've lived in other countries--poor Eastern bloc countries--and have a good friend who wrote a book on Afghanistan after living there for 4 years.

To: JustTradeEm who wrote (1197)	9/24/2001 5:04:33 PM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

From: FaultLine: To: JB, Jill, and Thread I hope hope everyone has read what I said about "zealot-free zone, where we judge the material and not each other." Those two ground rules along with the fact this is a moderated forum means that I must occasionally assume the role of thread judge. Jill, I imagine you realize you are taking little chip shots at many of us for not "getting it" and for past collective sins. These little insults do add up and after awhile in an atmosphere where I ask people to not respond-in kind to slights, it is like death by a thousand cuts. I personally don't like it -- it seems disrespectful to me. It also signals me that you are pushing a case, i.e. a cause, and that is specifically OT. All I ask is that, contrary to the posting style on some other forums, we post here in an atmosphere of mutual respect with a minimum amount of selling the Brooklyn Bridge. JB, I suppose you should have run your complaint by me. Once we establish a mutually accepted set of expectations for this forum, I hope the group will self correct with simple requests and cooperative responses carrying the day. On other matters: I guess 1200 posts in 9 days indicates some kind of need is being met. Thanks to everyone who has participated: I've tried to greet you all but I know i have missed a few. Welcome aboard. I'll be real busy the rest of this week but next week I would like to begin the transition out of being a general topic forum toward a more directed specified subject situation as outlined in the header. To start the transition, I'm planning to set up a block of time each day when we will consider just one subject -- a reading or a set of readings. I'm thinking 3PM EDT to 10PM EDT on weekdays. Weekends? Don't know yet. Any other suggestions to accomplish this end? What do you all think? Best regards, Ken/FL