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: one_less who wrote (43718)	2/5/2002 7:06:59 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 82486

"E has every right to challenge comments made about her that she had no way of responding to on the Bin Laudin thread. She has an opportunity to do that here or on another corresponding thread." That is garbage. Many (if not most) of the people on the other thread (whether lurking or otherwise) would never see her defence. Also, placing upon one person the burden of acting dicourteously on another thread by intrusive behaviour, is hardly a condign request or expectation: nor, is warranted the unfair expectation that the victim must shuttle between threads with added work and effort wasted to repeatedly establish the set, setting, and context--to explain, as she attempts to defend her name, character, and reputation--why she must be rude and intrusive as a matter of exigency. Who will buy that? And if they won't buy it, then how do you assert it as a valid option? It is only by circumstance, that here and today, some of us are addressing the issue--at least, obliquely, of the principles involved. If it was the Nortel thread, it might not be the case... The principle is that it is unfair, disrespectful, and of poor character to force people to use extraordinary measures to defend their character or their position, because of intentional and mean-spirited behaviours on the part of those who attacked her because she was disarmed by force rather than by argument--and was attacked AFTER the fact. When people used to cheat at games, they were shot. And nobody stood up to say: "Oh! He didn't need to play here. The cheaters aren't to blame! If she has a complaint there are other towns she can get to a few days ride from here. We think it was ok to take her guns and shoot holes in her canteens and grub pack with ours." What you perhaps ought to be asking yourself is just how small minded a group of people need to be before they get to curl their lip and stick out their chest at somebody they have placed behind bars. I can understand Neo's ridiculous investment in trying to undo the sense of inferiority he has long carried toward E. But I do not understand your rationalizaton of a simple matter of what being fair, decent, and above board entails. This question does not require essays or debates. It requires a few seconds listening silently to your own thoughts and motives, and asking yourself what place character has in the interactions of people. I have seen JLA do this many times; and he intentionally times it to silence the person at a critical issue of an interchange. Then he struts a bit and manipulates a few fools to do the same. You would like to pretend that the reason JLA did not ban E at the start was because of his reluctance to being underhanded or prejudiced. Pretend that if you like. Everybody knows how JLA gets his "kicks". If you think we are wrong to criticise him for that, then fine.