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: Lane3 who wrote (49705)	6/8/2002 5:40:45 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Gee, for a long time I thought X and I had a voluntary notoorabout. Until she decided it was inconvenient and just had to attack me. Oh, and that was out of the blue. It was on this thread at a time I wasn't posting at all on this thread. Does this clarify matters? Message 17576852 siliconinvestor.com siliconinvestor.com siliconinvestor.com siliconinvestor.com siliconinvestor.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (49705)	6/8/2002 6:35:49 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Superb. Exquisite. I intend to nominate this for a "best of SI" post. A perfect explanation of a typical interaction and the damage done by jumpers-in with what they perceive to be good intentions. Edit: Message 17577087

To: Lane3 who wrote (49705)	6/9/2002 10:22:51 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I wrote this earlier, but here it is in my window so I never sent it. Yes, X gives as good as she gets, but it would never come to that if outside agitators didn't swarm to the scene and inflame matters. At least I don't think it would. Since it always happens, though, there's no way to know for sure. You know that X thinks, explicitly, that the net is a place for bad behavior? (Not only bad behavior, let it be understood!) That she defends being an attack dog in theory and has defended it in practice, even when the (psychological) attack was knowingly carried out by a person of whose behavior she says she disapproves, against a 'friend' of hers with PTSD? That she has acknowledged hounding people herself? That she has posted that she enjoys being mean on SI? That she has acknowledged that fairness does not concern her? This is the person whose behavior you rationalize by blaming it on "outside agitators"? Tell me precisely how I should engage X and I'll be happy to give it a try. I was, yesterday, posting quite civilly on an issue of substance after having posted little recently, when she made a sarcastic personal dig, the "crusade" one. Was that because I'm an outside agitator, or what?

To: Lane3 who wrote (49705)	6/10/2002 2:54:04 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Typical Karen "Jewel throws that series of insults at X, X throws them back, and you see fit to castigate X for them? I am sorry that you were bored or what ever but I was not, nor was I frustrated and behaving as you described me in this post. I carried on a lengthy dialogue with you in which you apparently take issue with the "feds" I do not, so you accuse me of wanting them in everybodies business where they don't belong and continually hound me to explain how such a position could be justified. Of course it could not but that doesn't mean that the federal government should have no position or that the attitude stated by the director of the National Library Association should be dismissed either. It took quite a few posts from the first to the last to convince you that my issue was primarily with the stated quote from the Director of the National Library association. After complaining many times that you couldn't understand what I was trying to say and complaining that I kept posting this quote, you admitted that it was not a good position for the director to have stated. "I was arguing against his notion of a federal role... Yes you did. Though you complain you didn't know what that position was. Hmmmm "I kept trying to get him to spit out his point, if he had one, Should I tell you again a few times that I took exception to the statement from the director of the national library association. Should I post the quote from the Director of the library association a few more times? You had other issues that you wanted to argue and I accommodated you as far as I could. It is not my fault that they didn't pan out for you. "he was fighting on several fronts at the same time." Several people expressed an interest in the topic. Since the dialog with you centered around YOUR ISSUE with the "Feds," the assumption was that I was advocating some sort of hands on between GI Joe and Marian the librarian. I think if you look back at my responses to Tim, and you are honest, you will agree that I was doing everything I could to dispel that notion. Since I was writing several posts explaining to people that they had gotten the wrong impression and then clarifying what I felt was a good outlook or position to have, the discussion went off on a couple of tangents. I was not frustrated and I think you should explain where the crankyness was and the little cracks that I was throwing out to you or Tim (the primary participants). CH made a couple of challenges to be specific on what everybody should do, or what I wanted him to do. He did this while declaring his position that no body should have expectations or judgements of anybody else. Well that is a set up if there ever was one. This was very late in the discussion and I had really said everything I could about my position. I don't think you are an idiot nor do I think CH is. CH wanted to push things to a new platform. I gave a polite and honest answer. Chris complained that I had not met his criteria of dictating his behavior. He claimed to be confused. I dismissed his complaint, and told him why. I made some general statement that I think we have an obligation to others as a matter of being human. So he made a more general challenge of what one as a human being would have as an obligation to other human beings. He expressed his doubt that there could be such a thing and if there was that he would identify with it. I gave my most heart felt and honest answer, with the best of intentions. X was tip toeing from the shadows and began posting as well. I responded cautiously but politely to her. Chris was expressing exasperation with me for not being more articulate with him. I explained my reasons for keeping things short. Neocon posted a nice rich explanation of his understanding of my brief statement. I endorsed his understanding of the post. The post was very straight forward and of obvious kind intent. Yet, there were some obvious not so good intended follow-ups by X and CH. X misquoted me and mocked me in a very mean spirited manner. She and CH had a little snide fest at my expense. You now confess your enjoyment and agreement with the whole thing. I did not respond or engage either of them. JLA commented on my poor judgement in attempting a polite dialog with X. I confessed that I had doubts and had expressed them from the start but felt opening a friendly door to X in what had been a friendly discussion might be a nice gesture. I told JLA that I had concerns about the possibility of " hateful, meanspirited, snide, illogical, slamming" and that X had lived up to that. These are not IMO flame words they simply are not "overlooking" X's contribution as you suggested to E. Snide: X admitted this elememt. slamming: X admitted this element. Illogical: X denies even the possibility of this. However, I would consider the post, Neocon made a logical follow up to the meaning of the post and X's something else. Something personal even with a tone of vendetta. Illogical in the context of what was asked for and what was given. Meanspirited: If you find her comments kindspirited, or even nuetral I would sure like to know how. "Mean" is something she has expressed a certain amount of pride over herself. It was a post to JLA not X. Still it was a comment about X's personality. And most people consider it a sabor rattle to see negative comments on their personality by someone they are angry at. Although X claims never to feel angry at any of us, I have my doubts. "Where does it come from, Pittsburg?" (sorry E). I should have guessed that it would bring X's...talents to the fore. I don't particularly care for the comments on my personality you make btw. I think I could find five objectionable descriptors in this post of yours. Well, X came on this way and you know it. It was uncalled for. So... "because the ref always sees the guy who throws the second punch? Well, that sounds fair to me. Not! So ref Karen? You have taken Laz, JLA, and E to to the penalty box over this. You have misrepresented me to the level of personal insult and out and out mischaracterization and misquoting. All this finger shaking and self righteousness to accomplish what? Boslter X, get your YA YAs out on people you don't want to confront on your own issues, using X. Convince people that their behaviour is unnexcused but if everyone would just over look X's.... "but it would never come to that if outside agitators didn't swarm to the scene and inflame matters, uh, the out sider and inflamer was X. CH had his own frustrations to vent and copped to that. He admitted to being out of character and playing a role with X that was pure animous. But you think the "Parrot" comment was out of line. I consider it very tame and considerate under the circumstances. If you were the even handed observer you claim to be you would have called him on this behavior. You are not. You are well aware of the history of conflicts between X and I and that I have asked her repeatedly to leave me alone. She began goading me and attacking via a discussion where she was definitely an outsider, presenting herself for no other purpose than to enflame. "His cracks to me are usually accusations of some ulterior motive on my part." Gosh Karen I wonder why? "X takes a swipe that was so clever I was choking with laughter. If people around here would just mind you, and over look X while she does her thing and and CH (or who ever) can chime in with your bolstering..."We were handling it "This is a classic case study of how these things happen. It is a perfect example of what I've been trying to describe to you."