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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (47480)	5/15/2002 5:00:52 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

He could not comment on points she raises or arguments she makes. And this was the sticking point. It becomes so restrictive that it is essentially impossible for me to engage in discussion on any topics that she also engages in. The SMBR recently, for example, had a brief discussion of the ice floes breaking off Antarctica. Suppose Poet said in a post "I believe this is all caused by Russian submarines operating under the sea ice." I would then be prohibited from commenting on whether Russian submarines operating under the sea ice had anything to do with the issue. The "arguments she makes" could even be construed so broadly as to say that if she were to argue that Bush were the greatest president the US had ever seen, I couldn't then discuss who might have been great presidents because it would be commenting on an argument she had made. I thought then and think now that that level of restriction was unrealistic, and simply guaranteed ongoing dissention as people argued over whether a post of mine constituted a comment on an argument she had made. It was, basically, being set up in advance for failure. Jewel has laid out what he understands to be the meaning of a to-or-about in SI. I think he is right, and am willing to abide by his definition.