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: jcky who wrote (33680)	10/17/2001 1:08:09 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I fail to see how the following post, made here last night, was a challenge. It looks like invective to me. And then the brave patriot ran back to her moderated thread: To:X the Unknown who wrote (33411) From: Carolyn Tuesday, Oct 16, 2001 11:15 PM View Replies (5) \| Respond to of 33681 You are a traitor. 5000 innocents lost their lives September 11, 2001, and you have the nerve to blame us???? You deserve to live in Afghanistan. The likes of you have attempted to sabotage all our country holds dear.

To: jcky who wrote (33680)	10/17/2001 1:19:45 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Absolutely. There's all this negative posting about "patriots" as though they were somehow not entitled to the same free speech rights at the right thinkers. For example, Message 16516453 Very sad that the "true patriots" actually had the gall to think they had free speech rights. Or when a poster writes: "As far as I'm concerned these are knee-jerk "patriots" who don't understand the Bill of Rights." As though "patriots" don't have their own free speech rights under the Bill of Rights. I frankly find more tolerance of dissent by "patriots" on this thread than I find tolerance of the views of "patriots" by -- well, I guess one can only say non-"patriots." Or at least certain ones. What's interesting to me is that for all this morning's knee-jerk springing to the defense of X, she did not appear in the least concerned last night about muzzling the free speech rights of those questioning the views she was representing. I give her credit for that. It was a healthy give and take, and within the context of past discussions here and the "no gloves" philosophy of the thread, remarkably civil.