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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (5851)	3/30/2002 1:43:10 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

We do not disagree on what constitutes a threat, imo, because i don't know what you think constitutes a threat, i know only that you won't tell me what i have mischaracterized as a threat, though you have said that i have done so. But i have not done so, and I don't know why you are saying I have done so but if it makes you feel good to say I have done so without giving me a hint of how, you will of course pursue feeling good, as human beings will, imo. Not all human beings. I don't claim to know if all human beings pursue feeling good. Some may pursue feeling bad, imo. Of course i could be wrong, it is only my opinion that you have implied that i mischaracterize non-threats as threats, perhaps you have complimented me on my perspicacity regarding threats, everyone can't express themselves identically, and of course you may have a different way of expressing agreement and compliments or of being insulting and personal that others do, because everyone is different, IMO and it would be a boring world if everyone expressed themselves using words in the same way, and this doesn't bother me because nothing bothers me. I did say you wouldn't explain your negative characterization or its implications to me, though, didn't I? But maybe you have explained, and maybe i just missed that post. Everyone makes mistakes, maybe the explanation is elsewhere and I missed it. But maybe i am right in pointing out that you cast aspersions and then, the way some passive aggressives do IMO (though I could be wrong, maybe all passive aggressives do this or maybe no passive aggressive does this, then I would have to change my statement), decline to justify the insult; though maybe it isn't an insult to say someone claims as threats, non-threats, because no aspersion is implied by you when you say that, as you have made clear. When you insult, it is not an aspersion, it is just a fact you are mentioning in your pursuit of the exchange of ideas, IMO. I will try to keep that in mind, your interest in ideas and the fact that the whole threat thing was not an aspersion. But it's true (though there is no truth) I can't help but wonder why you raised on this thread the entire issue involving Ish and CL and the PM if, as you say, you do not want to hear about anyone's pm's. The issue you raised could only be explored with reference to PM's since it was about PM's. Some people do inexplicable and contradictory things because they are just troublemakers, I'm not saying you are one, because I don't know you and never have, though I know you know much better than I used to, IMO, but I could be wrong, so I don't know why you personally raised the subject of PM's when you are so uninterested in them, and I surely don't know why you claimed that the issue with the person you introduced the discussion of was "exactly like" an earlier issue if you had no interest in the PM's involved, and declined to learn anything about the current issue at all. continued in a sec, imo.

To: epicure who wrote (5851)	3/30/2002 1:49:39 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

continuation, imo: ...But of course I could be wrong, perhaps you have an interest in some PM's and not other PM's, and perhaps you believe that I would alter a PM or that Ish would alter a PM or perhaps you don't believe that, though it would be easy enough to get Jeff to confirm the correct report of a PM, I dare say, but I could be wrong, maybe I would secretly alter a PM I sent to you or to kholt for report to you to make it appear to be a threatening PM, one never knows what one will do in the grip of one's trouble-making twin, does one, X? But I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that Ish or I would alter a PM because that would be casting an aspersion. In summary: Your statements regarding Ish and CL and PM's (and regarding a topic you shouldn't have raised on this thread, especially since you know so little about it and refuse to learn more) being "exactly the same," were inaccurate and troublemaking. Your implication that I have called non-threats threats is inaccurate and personally insulting. Your implication that Ish or I might alter a PM is scurrilous and personally insulting. Your uninterest in learning that the threat you have communicated doubt about the existence of was in fact real is revealing, IMO. Suppose, X, just hypothetically, that I PM'd to you "I don't give spit about what you believe. You keep spreading your nasty lies about me and you will have a real problem on your hands!!!!!!!!"... would you consider that a threatening PM from me? Perhaps this hypothetical could be instructive. I would like it if you say that No, you wouldn't think it was threatening, because then we'd know for a fact we understood the word "threatening" very differently. IMO. Hypotheticals are often instructive in isolating differences. If you have felt any aspersions were cast on you in this post, you are wrong. I won't explain why you are wrong, as you are wrong whenever you think aspersions have been cast on you. But rest assured without any evidence that you are wrong that no aspersions have been cast on you in this post or in any other but I won't explain that because imo there is no point.