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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (51058)	6/14/2002 7:49:59 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

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. I have no evidence that it was a joke. CH has offered no evidence that it was a joke. I do not have any reason to believe that it was a joke. CH has asserted that it was, but I don't have any reason to believe him. OTOH, I'm unwilling to assert that he is lying. It all depends, I guess, on what you consider the default. In my mind, the default is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof should always be on the person making the charge. You offer no proof. In a civil society, we don't charge people with misdeeds unless we have compelling evidence, not just suspicion or intuition or popularity. Suffering? I'd suggest a short PM chit chat with E will settle that issue. I don't doubt the suffering. My point is that malice is about the intent of the perpetrator to cause suffering, not the suffering that may result. If you want a word that focuses on the suffering of the target, pick another word. Cavalier, maybe. Or Callous. And next time we get into a discussion like this, I'll be sure to bring my calipers. LOL. That reminds me of when I was buying my home. I complained to the builder that the kitchen cabinets weren't level. I had this level that was about nine inches long and I could set it in any number of places and the bubble would zip to one end. He comes in with this four foot level and declares it level. I complained that, if you have a long enough level, the Grand Canyon would be level, too. Your calipers made me thing of that. You and I bring to the table very differently gauged calipers. Because we anticipate different ranges of tolerance, I guess. 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 dned if I will put with that. You keep bringing up these non sequitors. That has absolutely nothing to do with intentional, malicious, or grievous. It only has to do with how you feel about him and what he did and what you did. I'm not questioning any of those things. It avoids the "PROVE I SAID THAT!" SYNDROME. What was said or not said is also not at issue. What is at issue is what conclusions you and I and others are able to reasonably draw from the evidence we have. 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. I take your point. I really do. You know, I'm not anywhere near as sympathetic to his side as you still seem to think I am. I'm only trying to make the point that you are overstating your side to your disadvantage. On a scale of one to ten, you're a ten and I'm maybe an eight. I'm not arguing points zero through eight. I'm trying to demonstrate to you that your eight through ten may be overstated and that you damage your case by insisting that ten is an absolute, known fact to which everyone must subscribe. We eights are on your side, not his, only more circumspect than you are in our allegations. We are not the enemy. Or is that too subtle for you? <g> All I want from you is "I see your point."