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: The Philosopher who wrote (50481)	6/11/2002 11:51:50 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

will "same old same old" fit on that blank if not, how about "nothing"

To: The Philosopher who wrote (50481)	6/12/2002 1:06:50 AM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

These are corrections to the misstatements/lies in the mere five lines you posted. 1) The objection that has forced this typically reptilian retraction from you was not mine. You were forced to try to cover your legal ass by my husband. 2) It is a lie that Karen ever said your accusation was "an overstatement." This is what she actually said: Regarding what he said, the first part about you and porn is such a reach it's laughable. No one could take it seriously... It wasn't funny and it was in bad taste given your attitude about porn. I don't think he did you any damage, though, because no one could take it seriously. It reflects poorly on him, not on you. 3) The characterization of my posts about pornography is, of course, laughably grotesque. I didn't say anything you claim I did! You simply made it up! You have got to be the sleeziest lawyer on earth, and are surely the model for every joke showing contempt for lawyers ever told! 4) You omitted the central fact, that the entire conversation was about the exposure of children to sadistic porn, and in it I opposed all exposure of children to such material by adults, giving as an example a foster father. You did not, and called me judgmental for doing so. 5) Your expression of regret is also a lie as evidenced by the defamation contained in your retraction. 6) The statement that it was a joke was merely a face saver offered by my husband for your use in the retraction. But other than that, good job, you wingnut!