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: Lane3 who wrote (51056)	6/14/2002 6:45:03 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I just want to know if Laz is one of the five riders and if so, have the other four arrived?

To: Lane3 who wrote (51056)	6/14/2002 6:56:25 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Message 17582064 That was a joke? Does it read like one? Where's the grinnie? What EVIDENCE do YOU put forward that that was a joke? I say that's a prima facie insult. He said in his "apology" that it was an attempted joke gone bad. OF COURSE he's going to try to weasel out of it. Have you seen a time when EVENTUALLY he didn't? Usually miuch, much later of course. He was actually unusually speedy this time. Look, if he proves to me he actually has had a change of heart and is fit for civilized society, I will accept him back in. I'd extend that to X and BIA too. But I want evidence first. ANd that evidence will have to include desisting from issuing intentional malicious insults at people. Particularly the rather nasty shots he has take at several women. Let me point out that he ands I WERE having reasonable discourse on SMBR up until he lodged that slam at E. But I will be d*ned if I will put with that. The absence of malice isn't a compliment. There's a lot of room between malice and compliment. Malice is a passion for causing suffering with the insult.* Suffering? I'd suggest a short PM chit chat with E will settle that issue. And next time we get into a discussion like this, I'll be sure to bring my calipers. Again, there's a lot of room between "pretty bad" and grievous. Calipers, please. You send me a stack of links as though your conclusions were intuitively obvious from those clips. I send you those links as evidence. It avoids the "PROVE I SAID THAT!" SYNDROME. May I suggest that there really is such a thing as trying TOO hard to See Both Sides Of Every Issue? Your moral compass can become demagnetized if you do that too much too often.

To: Lane3 who wrote (51056)	6/14/2002 8:05:38 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

All I have been trying to do is to demonstrate that someone could be skeptical about charges of stalking and perversion without being on Chris's "side." It is indeed pleasant to find another person here who isn't into jumping blindly onto bandwagons. Not that I ever thought you were that kind of person. You've proved the contrary many times over. But it's nice to have you pointing out that you can disapprove of a person's conduct without having to paint them as blacker (and more to the right) than Attila the Hun. But if the experiences of Neo and JC are any indication, you can expect further repercussions. The idea of balance, the idea of tolerance, the idea that there are shades of disapproval, are ideas which seem to be alien to a number of posters here. You're either with'em or agin'em. Black or white. They haven't figured out that the world isn't quite that simple. As you say, if they get all het and waste their ultimate outrage for this behavior, they have no room left when truly bad behavior happens. All you have to do is look around at the world -- at the car bombngs in Israel, at Colorado burning up with several dozen homes burned to the ground and hundreds of people evacuated, at 9-11, at the apparent kidnapping in Utah--to realize that the worst that could happen here is mighty small potatoes in the scope of life. Not that it's insignificant. But certainly not worth the emotion and outrage that have been expended on it.

To: Lane3 who wrote (51056)	6/15/2002 12:07:55 AM
From: E	Respond to of 82486

He said in his "apology" that it was an attempted joke gone bad. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. I don't know how you can say for sure that it wasn't. Gotta go with "alleged" on this one. No, you don't have to go with alleged. As you know, it was my husband's proposal that if he wanted a face-saver, he could claim it was a joke. And CH didn't make the slightest claim to my husband that it was a joke, btw. You know what CH wrote to N? -- "I'll be interested in seeing how your wife explains how she knows so many intimate details about porn. I doubt very many women her age do. But I'm sure she has some explanation ready." "Explains"? "some explanation ready"? I think that wasn't a joke; I think it revealed deep malice. Remember, I had posted exactly how this material came to be known to me-- as spam, as articles, as TV programs on the subject. I take it that "ripping the clothes off women at a tailhook party" is grievous in your view. Why? I can name dozens of aggressive acts, verbal and physical, on an ascending scale of seriousness with tailhook at the bottom of the list. I note that you paraphrase I wouldn't have thought it either, a few months ago. But since she let slip how she's into looking at sadistic porn... as "being into kinky porn." They are not the same ('let slip' changes the implication, and 'kinky' does not equal 'sadistic'); and the fact that you think they are I find somewhat baffling. If CH had said I was "into kinky porn," I would have been annoyed and, as usual, contemptuous of him. But that is not what he said.

To: Lane3 who wrote (51056)	6/15/2002 12:12:53 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I would only call them insults because the targets of them took them as such. Not everyone would. Karen, what per cent of the world population of women, or of American women, do you think would not feel it "deeply insulting" to be falsely characterized as having "let slip that [they were] into looking at sadistic porn." 1%? 2%? 3%? We must use our intuitions. I intuit that it's considerably less than 1%. What is the intuition on which you based your bringing these women into the discussion, as though my reaction was perhaps atypical in our society? 20%? 50%? 70%? Note that I "let slip" this fact, according to CH! So you could conclude that I am not among this group you have introduced into the conversation! Sorry to have raised this after the discussion is (presumably) over; links were just sent to me, and I wanted clarity about certain matters.