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: Neocon who wrote (41270)	12/19/2001 7:58:04 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I looked over the material that is supposed to substantiate. It seems likely that Northwesterner is CH, and it seems that he mentioned being a minister. Yet there is nothing that leads me to retract the previous post. It is an isolated instance, and therefore likely to be tongue- in- cheek.....

To: Neocon who wrote (41270)	12/19/2001 12:48:17 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

"...it must have been tongue in cheek.... Maybe, maybe not; there are other plausible explanations. A person may get caught up in a guiding role for a short period of time, whether through teaching in a school or more informally and see themselves as a minister of their particular affiliation. One might identify with the title do to some informal transitory experience without being formerly ordained, only later to drop it. I can imagine that CH could have seen himself in some sense a minister but when the charge was made to take a stand on the title he became somewhat discomfited. No dishonor in that. But the challenge of, is yo is or is yo aint a minister, seemed to imply something beyond mere acknowledgement of circumstance. The particular vein of ministerial identification may be something that is personal and a sensitive issue to CH and not what would be acclaimed by mere acknowledgement of a title. This would explain the mysteriousness and vagueness of recent discourse. Another plausible explanation is that CH considers E a pest and decided to pester her in return until one or the other blinks. There is some evidence to this idea. I don't claim to know any of this to be the case but it is just as qualified as the tongue in cheek explanation. Unless CH himself acknowledges the statement and provides an explanation of its underpinnings I am comfortable to leave it alone. He has not even gone as far as to say it is no one's business. He seems to be bating more than one hook in this pond. I am more curious as to 1)why E thinks it is important. and 2)why chris is evasive on the issue. Since neither of them appear interested in revealing their motives, I am not going to press the issue.