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 (50274)	6/10/2002 9:35:18 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

I dare say you would correct them, too. Probably not, but I understand that you and others might feel a need to. People differ in that regard. I have a clip file containing thirteen snide comments from Jewel during the course of our most recent discussion that I did not bother to argue or correct. People have their own ways of dealing with these things. I prefer to stay on point. When I saw you evade condemning that post I wasn't evading condemning that post. That's an interpretation one might not make but it is not a statement of fact. It wasn't what I was doing. I get a certain amount of grief from people who perceive me as biased when I don't condemn this or that. That question had come up in just the last day, one of Jewel's comments, I think. As I explained at the time, I rarely condemn things on the thread I disapprove of which means that it isn't logical to draw any inference of bias when I choose to stay silent, but I recognize that folks who have a loyalty rather than principle driven framework don't understand that so they err when they infer that my silence means favoritism. So, in the post to which you refer, I took the opportunity to lay out the kinds of considerations that cause me to comment or not comment. It was an effort to provide some insight into my thought process on the off chance that someone might be interested in understanding them rather than assuming bias. And because it was a useful exercise for me. I subscribe to the notion that, if you haven't written it down, you haven't thought it through. because you have the reputation among some people for a partiality to X and CH The notion that I favor CH is as risible as the notion that you're promoting porn. I'd just love to see any evidence people think they have of that. I had noted that you seemed at one point to attribute the nature of many of X's posts, which seem very much consistent with her personality structure as we see it here, to "outside agitators." With regard to favoritism, this is the story with X. As everyone must know by now because I've said it enough, I'm here to discuss issues. Other people may have different agendas. That's mine. To discuss issues you need a group of issue discussers. Not everyone here is inclined in that direction. I think that X is a welcome addition to that mix because she is smart, knowledgeable, articulate, and has some unusual points of view so she adds to the color and texture of the debate. I missed her contribution during the early days of SMBR when she wasn't participating and I lobbied her to join us. I recognize that, due to her sharp tongue and a lot of history, she's a lightening rod for some, so I lobbied others to at least wait until her claws came out before they jumped her. Since I was sponsoring her, so to speak, I naturally was her advocate. That's not the same as favoritism, but it looks a lot the same to the casual observer. As it turns out, the gang was all over her based on their history with her before she even had time to give them any fresh material so the effort failed. The problem as I see it is that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. People jump her in anticipation of her tongue, then she reverts to concertina wire mode, and that's that. Vicious circle. The same situation occurred here the other day. There was some squabbling going on but nothing serious, IMO, until JLA and Laz showed up and lit into her, and she, of course, reacted. So that's what I was talking about when I spoke of outside agitators or gangs. My premise was that the situation would have remained manageable had the gang not escalated it. It takes two to tango. X seems to be more than willing to tango after a slap or two. I was trying to break the cycle by avoiding the slaps rather than avoiding the reaction to the slaps, which I have long since given up on. I am not taking the position nor have ever that X isn't a roll of concertina wire when she gets on a tear, only that these "outside agitators" have a "last clear chance" to avoid the blowup and I was hoping to persuade them to take it so that I can have discussions with you and X and others all on the same thread. That's what it's been about. This has been my premise and my project. Whether my assessment of the situation or my plan were correct or not, that's what I was doing and that's why people's favoritism warning lights keep flashing. In addition to that, X and I have a good personal relationship. She accepts me as I am and I accept her as she is. That's relationship 101. I try to do that with everyone, but not everyone reciprocates. X does, so I do, too. I was interested to see what your reaction would be if I asked you myself I wish that when people have questions or reservations about what I'm doing they'd just ask. I usually have a rationale for what I do and I can usually explain it.