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: epicure who wrote (49771)	6/9/2002 1:41:12 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

This post is about your threat, but first: You know, I'm so relieved at the "woof woof" explanation. I had no idea why you wrote "woof woof" in your post, and thought it was just decompensation. It was part of why I thought you'd lost control last night. It just looked deranged to me. Actually, I'm not angry at you, X. I genuinely feel sorry for you-- and saying that isn't a tic with me the way it is with you. A free floating anger drips from so many of your posts, and the need (or desire) to have here a place where you can be "mean" (your word) and engage in "bad behavior" (your words) to people comes entirely from anger. I mean from where else, Pittsburgh? I don't feel as sorry for you as much as I do for your victims, but not having been one of them I have no personal reason to be angry at you. It's true that I don't like or respect you anymore, but that's not the same as anger. It's true that I reveal that I have no respect for your behavior when I think you're being horrid or unfair, but that's not the same as anger, either. You are sooo angry at me that yesterday when I was engaging in an issues discussion, not personal, about porn-access for children, which we merely disagreed about the dangers of, you threw in the sarcastic "crusade" crack, and when I engaged you about the puzzling Laz/toorabout matter, you made the "oar" and "what it's worth" one. I was being neither horrid nor unfair, I thought. I was arguing with you, though. That's true. If your anger at me weren't already obvious, this threatening line would make it pretty explicit: <It would make such interesting public reading.> Of course you know a great deal about me and mine, X, we having at one time talked openly (and privately) to each other about our lives, revealing our true identities; and the phrase "such interesting public reading" is a threat to use "publicly" to "analyze" me information I want to remain private. I know perfectly well that the threat is not explicitly to give specific identifying information, name, address, family information, that sort of thing. But it's to do something I've never even thought of doing: not distinguish between what I see here and what I knowabout you, your life, your history, because we used to talk openly. The idea that you haven't done your best here to characterize me negatively is of course silly. But you've restricted yourself to public evidence, as I have. So you are letting me know that you are so angry that I'm getting a warning. (Oh! Wait! Now I understand a couple of other baffling lines you've tossed my way. The "you may just pull the table clothe down on your head" line is also a threat that you would harm me. (It was also one of the things that made me think you were in extremis last night; it looked like a threat, but it couldn't be a threat, so it had to be dada.)) Okay, I don't know what of the non-public you're on the verge of making public use of, but I've thought about it for all of five minutes, and have decided that if you are angry enough to do something you clearly think you shouldn't, which you have finally gotten through to me that you are, duh, I'll let you have what you want. Which is what, exactly? What is it you want from me to prevent you from "pulling the cloth down on my head" with "interesting public reading"?