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 (47832)	5/17/2002 12:06:37 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

For the record, let it be understood, unless you correct me, that you deny that sexual innuendo in CH's posts was clear and that the the desk officer questions you proposed contained sexual innuendo and insinuation also.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (47832)	5/17/2002 12:11:23 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Certainly not the innuendos you found. One reason, perhaps, that E found those innuendos is that her and my early relationship on SI was, let me say, uh, perhaps a wee bit more than mildly suggestive. Now there was little overtly sexual in the Arteeste's performance of simply painting a picture on a canvas she had provided, but there was a suggestiveness about it which was, perhaps, intended to be read and received as such. To those who have read the relevant Beltane passages this will make sense. Those who have not are probably scratching their heads. The point being that E became very enthusiastic about reading innuendos into my posts. And once one has developed a framework in which they view another's work, they tend to maintain that framework. So it doesn't surprise me that she would draw innuendos that others without the same shared experience are unable to find.