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: J. C. Dithers who wrote (47007)	5/13/2002 9:10:44 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I can't agree with this.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (47007)	5/13/2002 11:22:12 AM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

You yourself noted that it was speculation on my part. So what is this "abandoning truth" rhetoric? It may have been an inaccurate speculation, but, as you noted, it didn't claim to be truth, it claimed to be what it was, an "example," and a "hypothesis" used to show precisely why CH's claim that Jeff knew he wasn't involved was a silly one. And it did show that, definitively. My hypothetical didn't show CH was involved (or that you were), only that he might have been, indirectly, through, for example you; and that Jeff's post didn't show he wasn't. Had you said you weren't involved? I didn't know that, and my hypothetical did reflect a suspicion on my part. It's for the best that this happened, JCD -- if you consider my hypothetical scenario a description of dishonorable behavior -- as my suspicion was shared by many. I'm sorry to have posted a hypothetical incorporating you, when the behavior described was behavior you consider dishonorable. BTW: I'm curious to know: Do you have any problems with CH's standards of truthfulness?