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 (37233)	11/17/2001 11:08:57 PM
From: E	Respond to of 82486

Here is a link to an article from The New Republic I posted on FADG. Excerpts: "In other words, this war is moral because it protects American lives. But it is also moral because it protects Afghan lives. For the number of innocent Afghans who have died in America's war to overthrow the Taliban is dwarfed by the number who will die if the Taliban remain in power... ...And so the conquering Taliban governor addressed the Hazaras from the loudspeaker of a city mosque. According to Human Rights Watch, Mullah Manon Niazi declared that, "Hazaras are not Muslim, they are Shia. They are kofr [infidels].... If you do not show your loyalty, we will burn your houses and we will kill you. You either accept to be Muslims or leave Afghanistan." With that, Taliban soldiers went door to door. They looked for people with Asiatic features, supposedly a Hazara characteristic. Hazaras were told to convert on the spot--and say a Sunni prayer as proof. Those who did not were killed immediately or taken to the city jail from which many were transported to the countryside and then executed. To teach the few remaining Hazaras a lesson, Manon Niazi decreed that the dead bodies remain on the streets for close to a week. Asiaweek estimated the dead at over 6,000.... Message 16674316

To: E who wrote (37233)	11/18/2001 12:16:52 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Actually, I do have one poster for whom I use the Ignore feature, and I find it works just fine. As to the rest of your post, I'm curious what information you think you have about my relationship with SI that would lead you to suggest inferences that are not supported by any facts that have been presented here. What information are you basing your opinion on, and are you confident that your information is reliable? As to whether I should self-censor my postings beyond the limitations imposed by the Terms of Use, I choose not to do so. If SI had a feature where you could post to the board in general without having to reply to a specific message, I would try to use that where possible to avoid posting responses to particularly individuals when they so requested. But it doesn't, so often the only way to respond to an issue raised by a poster and have it make sense to the thread is to make it through a response to that poster. That's just the way SI is. So when any poster posts things I think need to be responded to, I will reserve the right to respond to them. You may consider that in whatever light you choose to. But it's clear that anybody who doesn't want to engage me in discussion is free not to do so. They can just ignore me. And as to thrusting oneself into others' inboxes in unpleasant and unwanted ways, you and WinSmith and Solon seem to be doing an excellent job of just that. Why you consider this any business of yours I don't know. But though it would be more pleasant if you didn't intrude on what is a personal issue between two people neither of whom is yourself, I don't demand that you not do so. (I have, though, asked Win Smith never to post to me again; let's see whether he believes that such requests should be complied with when they are addressed to him. My bet, frankly, is no, but maybe I misjudge the man.) In your case, since we have had very pleasant times posting to each other in the past, I am delighted to continue my posting dialogue with you, even if you choose to say unpleasant things to me when I have said nothing to you that I know of that was unpleasant or unwelcome. BTW, I must say that I find it difficult to see how a person can legitimately be frightened by what is posted on a public thread, out in the open, in compliance with the Terms of Use, to an unidentified person posting under an alias who, by her profile, lives some three thousand miles away from me. If you can explain to me how it is legitimate to be seriously frightened by that, in any normal sense of the term, I will reconsider my position. Things said in this forum may well be unpleasant (as your words were to me), but frightening? That doesn't make sense to me, personally. I am hardly a Steven King construct, after all, whatever else I may be.