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 (43694)	2/5/2002 5:47:40 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

I have sometimes wondered why we are so unable to end issues here. If this were a dinner conversation, none of these issues would have lasted more than five or possibly ten minutes. They would be discussed, chewed over, (nice pun. Thank you) and we would move on. Why do the basic rules of polite conversation get so neglected once we do our talking with our fingers? Note I admit to being one of the culprits. The we really is we, not you.

To: Neocon who wrote (43694)	2/5/2002 5:59:08 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Oh, look, again it is I who have carried the argument on, not JLA, not you, but moi, seulement moi! The power I have is remarkable, n'est-ce pas? I would feel like screaming if I were you, too. You have my sympathy. So your new fillip is that the standard for determining whether one has a legitimate complaint about having been treated boorishly by someone on a past occasion (I think it was boorish; you do not, not at all) is not a description of what the boor has done, including documents, but whether one has followed the boor to another venue peopled by uninvolved others to introduce the argument newly there? Or whether one has sent a PM to the boor? Do tell me how that scenario would have played out, in your opinion! <g> Interesting criteria, though. A most novel approach.