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 (51103)	6/15/2002 2:56:51 PM
From: E	Respond to of 82486

Karen, if you don't notice what the insult that you are discussing is, in fact, until late in the day, and confuse it with another insult entirely (one that wasn't made), it isn't surprising that your staunch insistence that "it" wasn't so bad could be misinterpreted as trivializing the actual insult to be supportive of the insulter, for a reason not understood. A great deal of effort was put into getting you to cognize what had been said by CH. Why did you refuse to see it? -- it was not because you were supporting CH, but because it hadn't really registered. But those of us for whom it had registered -- we didn't know that, Karen! If the words "the impression that you were a staunch supporter of CH was being conveyed" felt as shocking and unjust to you as "E has let slip she is into looking at sadistic porn" (and its followup) felt to me, then the experience has been of a painful and shocking injustice, and I apologize sincerely for inflicting it on you.

To: Lane3 who wrote (51103)	6/15/2002 3:42:51 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I've just gotten a PM from a sane person I consider a friend who read my staunch support of CH impression comment and sent this to me. (He hadn't read the one following it): That statement about Karen is absolutely indefensible. It is so patently false that I am surprised and disappointed that you would see fit to repeat it or lend it credence. If your intent is to alienate those who have thus far been your supporters, create new enemies, and wallow in the muck and mire of unfounded and unprincipled character assassination, you have surely succeeded. This vicious vendetta is as stupefying as it is destructive of your aims. Clearly my apology was wildly inadequate to the offense, Karen. I don't know what to say, except that I will read your posts on the subject again, and instead of doing it so self-centeredly (mainly looking for validation that my outrage and shock against CH, and the feeling of injustice that of course accompanied it, were somehow shared), I'll be more aware of what your own priorities were, as you wrote your own thoughts. I apologize again. I was clearly wrong in my perception that you were trivializing in support of CH (as I said in the post), and a vendetta against you was not in my mind or heart when I sent it: Message 17607763

To: Lane3 who wrote (51103)	6/15/2002 5:33:24 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

"E, I don't think I will ever find a rational explanation for that impression, and I am giving up trying." Let me try. Late in the day, you employed some "buster" comments. These were at a time when there was so little left to the discussion that you and Laz were refering to caliper measurements of differences. It was not too far back that you had been joshing with a couple of posters about the stalking accusations. So, I would say, over time and given the additional circumstances you have revised you view of the matter to a somewhat more serious and critical view. The "buster" comments were a breath of fresh air. Many of us had seen our nuetral and rational comments twisted to be something else along time ago; and so had taken a more cautious and critical tone in our contributions to the discussion. As we became adherents of the "buster character" position we found that we had kholt to contend with. Too which, CH would weigh in with new information and confidence. It was discouraging and confusing. I used the word "bolstering" as I saw the thing entangeled with another frequent flyer here, which complicated the matter further. Perhaps enabling would be a more exact word. However, the relationship you conveyed regarding CH was quite similar. Without it I don't think we would have seen much of the "buster" character over the last couple of weeks. CH made statements that he intended to rebuild his reputation as a gentleman. He didn't and there were only a couple of posters who didn't encourage him in that direction. Until you detected a personal slight from CH (sitting on your coat tails), which was pretty minor, you really appeared to be sheltering him under a wing. I agree with all of your arguments about using overstatement terms. It definitely hurts the position of the person using the term. If you are in a checker game and your opponent slices your right arm off, the judges may disqualify you for calling the guy a b*%#$rd. After all we don't know the circumstances of the gladiator's birth, do we.