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: J. C. Dithers who wrote (33144)	10/15/2001 11:53:30 PM
From: Constant Reader	Respond to of 82486

Thank you for that clarification. When you switched from third person to second person in the same paragraph I thought you were commenting about me personally. Since I do not know you and you do not know me, I naturally wondered why you wrote those things. You are correct that you still know absolutely nothing about me and I regret to say that I consider your new inferences as inappropriate as they are misguided, although I am sure that you meant well. That said, I'm not really interested in pursuing this or any other subject with you at this time. I hope that you have completely recovered from the gall bladder surgery and wish you the best of health.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (33144)	10/16/2001 2:43:09 AM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Did you stop at all to wonder ... How does he know I am gay? How does he know I am a man? How does he know how I would answer "Who Am I?" The above masculine personal pronouns indicate that you are male. But in this post, you mentioned a husband. Message 16507819 I'm curious, and maybe simply confused and misreading. It's late! Are you not male, but use 'he' to refer to yourself anyway? Or are you a male with a husband? If this is too personal, just say so, of course. I glanced at some of the exchanges about deceased public individuals who were gay. Admittedly, I didn't read all the exchanges. Do you think that if the gayness of a deceased public figure is known, it should be kept secret from those of us who find it interesting and find that it adds an additional dimension to the life being considered, or are you just stating your personal lack of interest in the subject? If so, who should keep it secret? Biographers? Scholars? Anyone discussing the person's life? Just gays, who are pleased to have positive images with which to counter the many negative ones that have been promulgated to their detriment? Does the love life of no deceased person interest you? Not artists, not writers, not public figures, nobody? I am always interested in the love lives of interesting or complex deceased people, if there is information about them. How about the love life of Elizabeth Barrett Browning? Does that interest you? Should the love lives of all the deceased be kept secret, or just of those who kept secrets during their lives? What if a famous public figure turned out to have been a secret wife beater or pedophile? What if he turned out to have been an anonymous philanthropist, self-sacrificing to a fault? Or to be a secret Sunday painter or secret writer of accomplished poetry about the human condition, or about love, who, my gosh, turned out to be wonderfully talented? Should those 'secrets' be held close to the vest, too? If not, what if the beautiful poetry were to a male poet's male lover? Which of these truths should be suppressed, and why? If a public figure has persecuted and expressed contempt for gays during his life, do you think when evidence is found that he himself was gay, that should be suppressed? Do you think that if a great writer, for example, has left behind boxes full of unpublished material including love letters and journal material indicating gayness, that those journals should be burned? Kept under lock and key? Shared with scholars and the world? Or what? I am so puzzled by your apparent position. You seem also to think that if the gayness of a deceased person is discussed, it automatically makes that "the most important thing you can say about yourself"? Why "most important"? Why not one aspect momentarily more important than it will be in five years, because momentarily it is news? They are dead. Bigots can no longer hurt them, so they no longer need protection from them, is the way it looks to me.