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: E who wrote (46763)	5/5/2002 1:47:46 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Yes, she's put them into a bad position. But personally, I think their obligation is to set the record straight, since it seems pretty clear that at least this "attack" was fake. And one has to wonder about the others. Were there really anonymous phone calls? Were the purported faxes kept, or did she throw them out or burn them? It makes one wonder. Another possible motive for faking the attack, beyond simply drawing attention to herself, could have been to make herself feel important in her own eyes, to validate the value of the work she was doing. One wonders whether she still believes in her own mind that she was attacked. If so, she is clearly a dangerous volunteer for AI to hang on to. I don't think, frankly, that AI will lose volunteer enthusiasm if it "throws her to the wolves." Those AI volunteers I know (including my niece, who is very active in AI), cherish truth enough that I think they would be relieved, not offended, if AI came out with the truth about one bad apple. But just my guess, since my very limited volunteer work for AI started and ended with my years in college, which was a mighty long time ago!