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: epicure who wrote (45457)	3/10/2002 3:13:36 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I believe "I can understand why you might want to see it the way you put it in your post" in a post implying you have sympathy for Poet and sympathy for CH (as do I, for both), and objecting to "bad behavior" implies that your concern is bad behavior on my part. Did I get this right? I've tried to have good behavior and to be helpful and to call a spade a spade and not allow obfuscation where it hurts a friend of mine. I'd like to ask you for a solution to this problem. Do you have a better one than the one I've sought in the best way I know how? I mean, other than advising "the timorous" to "stay at home"? Re BIA. The reason she's in the header is that if alluding publicly to a fellow poster having purportedly sent one sexual PM's with the implication you might present those online is wrong for CH it's wrong for her. BIA's claim, and intimation, was made in the same stream of posts. If she hadn't done what CH did she wouldn't have been excluded. Again: would you offer yourself as a mediator in this matter? You are a friend of both Poet's and CH's, recently, and clearly have an idea of how things could be handled more sensitively than those who've been trying hard to mediate have done. If you offer to handle this in a better way, I suspect both Poet and CH would be grateful. I would be.