SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Bill who wrote (48708)5/31/2002 2:44:06 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 82486
 
Laz has proven that he didn't ban her. He wasn't even on SI that day.

That's a perfect example of what I was mentioning earlier. People claim something is true, they claim they have proof when all they have is circumstantial evidence and inference. That's a lot of what Dithers has been talking about, but people got on his case for it.

Just because Laz didn't post doesn't mean he wasn't around to ban X. Doesn't mean he was, either. We don't know. We can't know. What we CAN do is quit claiming we have proof when we don't and quit branding people who infer something different from what we infer.

End of rant.



To: Bill who wrote (48708)5/31/2002 3:15:26 PM
From: Rambi  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Laz hasn't proven anything, not that he has to (as far as I'm concerned anyway). I frequently don't post for days, but read everything. Don't allow your common sense to drown in your X vitriol.

I don't know what happened, except for what I posted. I don't think what IS remembered makes a claim to know the whole truth, nor does it seem possible to know what happened after all this time. (edit- rereading- I am thinking - and why the hell does this matter anyway)
However, it seems awfully important to you that X be evil and bad and in the wrong no matter what, which is exactly the kind of situation that is the problem around here.
I hope being in a cabal involves chardonnay, handsome men, and doing the macarena with wild abandon.



To: Bill who wrote (48708)5/31/2002 3:37:42 PM
From: J. C. Dithers  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 82486
 
Laz has proven that he didn't ban her.

I looked back at the other incident I remembered. LL warned X that if she posted one more time to Jewel she would be banned. But it appears that X quit the thread instead.

Getting into the spirit of the kind of characterizations that your cabal favors ... would this justify a charge of attempted murder instead of murder?

(Just trying to contribute to the riling up here).