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: jlallen who wrote (38761)	11/26/2001 12:44:46 PM
From: Constant Reader	Respond to of 82486

That is a tall order and I am not sure that either of us is up to that challenge ;-). Seriously, there was no hidden meaning in my comment. I complimented her on a well-written note that, I believe, was sincerely delivered and contained none of the subliminal messages you assign to it. I will now reply to your misinterpretation. I cannot speak for E, but I did not say her opinion is more "valid" than someone else's. I certainly don't need your reminder that our Constitution protects the right of free speech. Neither does E (as is apparent from her posts on SI). No more than you personally need such a reminder (as is apparent from your posts on SI). You are certainly correct when you write that you are entitled to express your opinion of the writings and speech of others. And you have every right to interpret those remarks any way you wish. Our nation does have laws with regard to slander and libel and most people choose to stay within the bounds set by law although it is not necessary if they are willing to pay the price for their excess. As you are a practicing attorney and (I believe) a fair person , I assume that you have not exceeded those bounds. For the record: This is what you wrote to me (on this thread): Really? Why exactly is the opinion E expresses any more valid than the one's expressed on that thread? The Constitution protects not only those ideas we agree with but those we disagree with most vehemently. When someone expresses an opinion I find anti-American, treasonouse, whatever, I will say so. And my right to say so is just as protected as the treasonous vermin who spout their antiAmerican drivel on these threads.... This is what I wrote to E (on this thread): Well said, E. Well said. This is what E wrote (on the Bin Laundry thread): I'm pasting this column from a post on the BB thread. There will be little disagreement with it here, I'm sure. I bolded a sentence that I think notable, though. I'm posting it because I've noticed many personal attacks on this thread and on others against people who are not at all "Bin Laden lovers," but are being called that, and in that way being demonized, because they have and express political/policy disagreements with the majority at a time when we have been attacked and are in a state of righteous fury. I point out that the few dissenters against our military response hardly pose a danger to our country, the support by the citizenry for our military actions being close to ninety per cent. The only reward for demonizing and attempting to intimidate into silence our fellow Americans is the gratification derived from expressing anger and of course from having found OBL-surrogates to scapegoat. So I just want to say that I disagree with the "dissidents," and even feel something close to hatred for some of them (not SI-ers), but defend to the death their etc... and I don't much like the flavor of this thread. I know no one cares, but it makes me feel better to say this, so I'm doing it.