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 (45340)	3/8/2002 11:38:24 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Good. Now we just have to get everybody on board that position.

To: Neocon who wrote (45340)	3/8/2002 2:05:25 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I should think an allusion to a fact or opinion in an article would clear the hurdle of "to or about"..... So would I. But look what he actually said. He talked a lot about the importance of being able to reply to Poet's articles. The articles themselves. To quote a passage and address it. But read more closely. He's got A PARENTHESIS! and look what it says inside it: . The rule proposed for me was that if there wasn't already a vigorous discussion of that topic going on such that I could clearly respond to other peoples responses without any suggestion that I was responding to the initial post (or to any points Poet had made during the disucssion unless the same points had been made by others so I could respond to the points as those poster's points, not as Poet's points) I should just not make any response, not involve myself in that particular discussion, but move on to some other topic. Don't you see how tricky he is? The man wants to engage with Poet. He can not BEAR to say, Okay, Neocon, I won't argue with her, I won't engage with her. So he talks at length about the New York Times article, its text... and in the parenthesis, reveals that he wants the right to respond to "points Poet has made," "as Poet." How about your asking CH to agree not to argue with Poet about anything, directly or indirectly, which means, of course, not arguing with "points she has made." It works fine for me and my toorabout partner, and we used to argue heatedly all the time. Is there a paucity of people to argue with and issues to discuss on SI? Doesn't anyone see that he is desperate not to have closed to him this way of engaging her? She posts and article, she gives her view, and there he is, engaging in an argument about the view she just posted. It's not as though he didn't have a record with Poet. He will follow her from thread to thread to find points she has made to argue with. Please ask him to agree not to argue with Poet, which is standard in the SI toorabout reg.