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: E who wrote (49846)	6/9/2002 11:50:24 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I wrote this earlier, but here it is in my window so I never sent it. And here I thought I was going to get to bed early tonite. Your window must be part of the conspiracy... You know that X thinks, explicitly, that the net is a place for bad behavior?...That she has posted that she enjoys being mean on SI? That she has acknowledged that fairness does not concern her? I have seen her express those points. This is the person whose behavior you rationalize by blaming it on "outside agitators"? There is a difference between what people say they think and how they behave. What we believe about what they think informs our assessment of their behavior, but the assessment is still based on the behavior, not the unexpressed underlying thought. In this case, I think that the behavior was triggered by "outside agitators" as I said earlier. Absent the trigger, it likely would not have occurred. I was, yesterday, posting quite civilly on an issue of substance after having posted little recently... X was posting pretty civilly, too, a little edgy, but civilly, before JLA and Laz showed up. Things deteriorated rapidly from there. I have watched that pattern for some time now. Which is why I concluded cause and effect. That's not to say that the deterioration could not have happened anyway, only that their arrival triggered the escalation ofthis particular incident. If you're not aware of the pattern, it is probably not readily apparent, which is why I pointed it out. when she made a sarcastic personal dig, the "crusade" one. The "crusade" thing was not so provocative that you couldn't have overlooked it had you wanted to. When people bring to an incident baggage, much of it unaired and unresolved, each little dig is additive until we react to the pile instead of the individual comment. I found that individual comment on the tame side. There was a lot of sniping going on that day. Maybe this is a case of a straw breaking the camel's back. Tell me precisely how I should engage X and I'll be happy to give it a try. I don't have a clue. I seem to have lucked out, so far at least. I do not presume to know what the secret might be. I imagine that trust has something to do with it, but I don't know what else, if anything. And I don't know a formula that I can recommend to engender trust through the framing of a post. ...even when the (psychological) attack was knowingly carried out by a person of whose behavior she says she disapproves... I'm quite sure that X has never expressed approval of what CH did to Poet, but rather has expressed disapproval. I understand why her opposition to some tactics of Poet's backers may have come across as support for Poet's enemy to thinkers less sophisticated than you, but I believe you can see the distinction. I understand why that distinction may not have been important to you as you pursued your cause, which had paramount importance to you, but the distinction was still there.