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 (50277)	6/10/2002 10:54:02 PM
From: bonnuss_in_austin	Respond to of 82486

<<loyalty "versus" principle-driven frameworks>> I noted that glaring phrase in this 'line of logic' from the emotionless, systems analyst that kholt seems to prefer to imagine herself. Always the logical, 'steady hand.' I also picked on one from a post of hers 500 ago? LOL. What a busy board. In which she indicated a similar disdain for the 'unsophisticated.' Did you catch that one? Yes. There are only a VERY SELECT FEW here who rise above plebian shoeless, toothless hicks who express genuine emotion about criminal stalking behavior of one Chrisopher Hodgkins. -g- bia

To: E who wrote (50277)	6/10/2002 11:14:02 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

But the implication that you can't be a good friend and also a person of principle, if you are implying that, is inaccurate with regard to me and I think is inaccurate with regard to most unsimple people. That was not what I had in mind. I was thinking about the original "gang" breakdown on the BR with lefties vs. righties. That appeared to be the only criterion. Whenever things heated up, the call went out and the gangs showed up for the food fight. No one worried about who was the instigator and who was the victim, or who had the better argument, or who was behaving better or worse. It was strictly bloods and the crips. Now, during these food fights, I would just hibernate and wait for things to settle down and I could go back to discussing issues. I never answered the call of any gang. During this period, I had a few people strenuously question me about why I wasn't standing up for my friends. My answer was that I didn't believe in gangs and I picked and chose the issues I engaged by my principles, not my buddies or my political leanings. During that time, I most frequently was engaged by Poet who was bothered that I didn't rush in to defend my buddies. As I recall, we never did reach much of an understanding about that and just agreed to disagree. It was a long time ago. So my clumsy shorthand about loyalty and principle was to differentiate my approach from those whose primary instinct is answer the call to arms for their gang, however that might be composed. I realize that things are not that simple, but sometimes people assume that they are. I don't know how many times posters have inferred loyalty or favoritism from my silence when that couldn't be further from the truth. I was just hunkering down and waiting for the storm to blow over so I could go back to work. I appreciate your taking the time and trouble to read what I took the time and trouble to post.