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 (47014)	5/13/2002 12:17:59 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

Based on your past postings, I'm beginning to believe that E and Poet are actually the same person, posting under two different accounts, probably from two different ISPs. This is just speculation at this point, but it looks likely. Please ask Jeff to confirm whether it is possible for you to be the same person posting under two names using two ISPs and accounts. Can he guarantee that that isn't the case?

To: E who wrote (47014)	5/13/2002 12:20:45 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Sometimes the forest gets lost in the trees as they say..... I don't think JCD has a full appreciation for the matter. I didn't find your behavior dishonorable and I'm one of those who shared your suspicion. Moreover, I'd go further and say there is no way that, if the suspenson resulted from an "informant's" tip, that Jeff could say with complete certainty that CH was not involved.... JLA

To: E who wrote (47014)	5/13/2002 7:37:33 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

It's for the best that this happened, JCD No it isn't, E. (I have been away all day, and I note that there have been 150 new posts on this thread, which I will probably not read any time soon. So this reply will no doubt be out of present thread context). Nonetheless -- No, it is not for the best. "Speculations" as specific as those you posted are intended as accusations. Accusations made publicly against anyone -- lacking evidence, foundation, or truth -- are dishonorable. Don't waste your time arguing the point. If you cannot see it, then argument would serve no purpose. If "[your] suspicion was shared by many," it only reflects the lynch mob mentality that has become prevalent here and on the SMBR thread. It is an ugly thing to behold. You need to reflect upon your own role in fostering it, and whether you have adopted a philosophy of ends justifying means. I stated on SMBR some time ago that I was not involved in Poet's suspension. I am sorry I did that, even though it is the truth, and would not do so again if I had the chance. I have always thought that if I were accused during the McCarthyism era, I would not have given anyone the satisfaction of issuing a denial or signing a loyalty oath. And I regret essentially doing so in an atmosphere on these threads that has become very much the same. I intensely dislike mobs of any sort, regardless of the "cause" out of which they are born. Whatever merits your cause may have had to begin with have been overwhelmed by a more insidious corruption of the soul here --- one which I think will, lamentably, long outlive the resolution of the CH-Poet issue. I know you were expressing some form of apology in what you wrote, and that is appreciated. Yet I believe you and I are conducting ourselves on the basis of very different value systems.