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 (47286)	5/14/2002 3:28:22 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 82486

Nonsense. I speak for no one but myself. And just what makes your judgment on the merits of this situation any more valid than my own? Life is a series of judgments JCD. I have seen all that I need to see and I have made my judgment on the facts as I see them. I am not afraid to disagree publicly or privately with anyone who disagrees with me. Once I make a decision, I am not afraid to defend it. Your allusion to the "mob" is insulting and unjustified. The fact that several people happen to agree on an issue and are not afraid to express those opinions and even to attempt to persuade or dissuade others does not make a mob. It makes as much sense as XXX and others of that ilk complaining about "pack dog attacks" and the like when they make some outrageous comment intended to provoke the sensibilities of others.... Its bullshirt. And I don't stand for bullshirt. Not from you and not from anyone else..... JLA

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (47286)	5/14/2002 3:56:11 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

They were both posting on the Rambi thread until the suspension? I am flabbergasted. This is a woman who needs a moderated thread created for her to shield her from proximity to Hodgkin? I am reeling..... I hope that things are not so far gone. I believe that people are sincerely trying to do the right thing. I will say that I was taken aback with some of the material used to discredit Hodgkin, especially having an argument in which I was his principal antagonist, ultimately, "brought to my attention" as if it had bearing. But a lot of my decision to take this tack stems from the fact that I found the business surrounding the suspension distasteful. Sure, E is right, he could have instigated someone else to do it, but his denials were credible, and others might have had a motive, especially to frame him. It began to seem more like a mob action. Then, when I answered Chris civilly a handful of times, I got some PMs taking me to task. The last one before I spoke out, which questioned my credibility and honor for not shunning Chris or joining in pummeling him, pissed me off, frankly. I do not know that he deserves all that has been heaped upon him. I do not know for sure that he does not. Others may be surer than I am. But I have to follow the case as it appears to me.......

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (47286)	5/14/2002 5:10:07 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

For quite some time now, there have been no new charges of harassment or stalking by CH. Indeed, up until Poet's suspension, she and CH appeared to have been coexisting rather peacefully on the Rambi thread, for one. Dithers, you are doing something weird here. Like, if you say it, it becomes true or something? Is that it? Bizarre. What does "For quite some time now, there have been no new charges of harassment or stalking by CH" even purport to mean, when only on May 3, he posted this: Message 17422314 and continued up until yesterday to harp on his and Poet's "relationship"! (You know--how "strong" it once was; and how he is going to address her "directly" with the purpose of "healing" it?) (In spite of her and her husband begging, yes, begging him to leave him alone.) You are a big one for social opprobrium for acts by consenting adults of which you disapprove. How about a little disapproval on your part for the psychological frottage going on of Poet by CH against her will? Doesn't it make your skin crawl? Isn't it wrong? more--->

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (47286)	5/14/2002 5:10:50 PM
From: E	Respond to of 82486

...And you say Poet and CH have been "coexisting" on the Rambi thread? Poet left DAR to avoid CH, and stayed off long enough so that when she returned on February 9 specifically to report on our lunch together, I replied "You're baaaaaack! (On SI)" A few February posts ensued. Message 17040210 She posted very sporadically in Feb and March, not much more than a dozen times, it looks like. Her posting has been extremely rare because of CH, and it has never been to CH, and each time she saw him at DAR she was out of there--her last post there having been on March 29 because of CH's presence there. The law, in this case, is the Terms or Use formulated by, and rightfully administered by, our host, SI. The decision of SI having been deemed unsatisfactory, these citizens have opted to take the law into their own hands. You do say the strangest things. The decision of SI was that CH would not post anything to or about Poet on SI and vice versa. But... HE THREATENED TO SUE THEM IF THEY WOULDN'T LET HIM POST TO HER, AT WHICH POINT JEFF WROTE TO POET THAT HE "HAD TO" REMOVE THE RESTRICTION ON CH. As to why people might tend to take CH's word with a grain of salt: Remember, this is the man who, among many other things, claimed to be a practicing minister. And he let his friends, including Neocon, I seem to recall, go out on a limb defending him when the untruthfulness of that claim was pointed out. And he claimed that Poet had made a post "disrespecting" our "young men in the armed forces," after September 11--and don't you remember that it turned out that no such post had ever been made-- as how could it logically have been, since Poet was fully on record as supporting our military action and never said anything to the contrary? This harassment has been going on for a long time. There are reasons CH isn't automatically believed.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (47286)	5/14/2002 5:12:08 PM
From: E	Respond to of 82486

Why don't you ask your friend to stop referring to their "relationship" (which doesn't exist)? To stop saying he is going to post to her when she has, innumerable times, asked him to leave her alone? Why don't you ask your friend to pay attention to Poet's husband's request that he not bother his wife?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (47286)	5/14/2002 5:18:24 PM
From: bonnuss_in_austin	Respond to of 82486

<<I didn't do it>> Noticeably absent in the 'who dunnit' discussion is your own cozy little two-SI-account family relationship, J.C. Dithers. -g- bia

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (47286)	5/15/2002 10:02:25 PM
From: Yogizuna	Respond to of 82486

If things have gotten out of hand here, you can place the blame squarely at Mr. Hodgkin's feet for fanning the flames of war with his extremely unwise comments about Poet which continue on and on relentlessly.... As for any possible violence if this situation was being played out in the real world, we all must remember that anyone could possibly reach the breaking point over emotional and mental stress, so we should refrain from harassing and stalking others, even if it is only done through this electronic medium. There is simply no excuse for harassing someone with unwanted attention, period. And those who allow this to occur and or support those who bully others through stalking or unwanted attention, are just as guilty as the actual perpetrator(s) IMO.