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: TimF who wrote (11266)	4/29/2002 11:11:09 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

...as long as everything involves consenting adults and no one gets hurt. Perhaps you have a different opinion. Can you declare for me the conditions in which you can give assurances that no one gets hurt, simply by the premise that actions involved consenting adults?

To: TimF who wrote (11266)	4/30/2002 5:49:18 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

"In fact even if I had not dealt with it before a post containing that sentence would not amount to acceptance. In really have no time to quibble with you about what constitutes your acceptance of my argument. You are clearly continuing it, and that is sufficient for me. "How many of those are relatively new words that recently have been used a lot on this thread and are intentionally imprecise so as to be a way to attack people by implying things about them that are not or at least may not be true?" That is crap, Tim. What are the "new words", or the "relatively" new words, or the relatively "new" words which are "imprecise" and intentionally "imprecise"?? What new words have been intentionally used outside of their meaning and usage to attack anyone?? There has not been one that I have seen. I don't think you have trouble understanding the meaning of words. "It was entirely appropriate as a response to your statement" You may have thought so. I thought it was a childish outburst of invective. "That's a joke right?" See the games you play? You knew very well that it was not meant to be a joke. "1 - This is a "boxing ring" What does that have to do with the truth of the proposition? "I also fully accept homosexuals as persons and can't think of any post here where I even vaguely hinted otherwise." Oh, come on! You have gone on without a break complaining about being confused about new words that did not allow you to be disapproving or some damn thing. But in any case, if you do not disapprove of homosexuals as persons, then what is all the cavilling about? "Also why do you have a problem with tolerance? How do you figure that? Have I ever said I did not tolerate you? Show me a link, please... Even if I disapproved of you, it does not mean I do not tolerate you. Show me where I said that. I have never been intolerant of you. I fully accept you as a person. Show me a link where I say I don't fully accept you as a person, or that I will not tolerate you? Is it necessary for me to jump up and down shouting for joy about you? Do I have to gambol and frolic in high merriment? Why do you accuse me of having a problem with tolerance? I consider you as being a person, so your accusation is way off the mark... "Please link to a post where I said it was" If I did not provide such a link in my post to you, then you may be sure that I was not making a particular response to a particular remark you had made, whether or not you did or did not make or imply such a response.