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: one_less who wrote (51107)	6/15/2002 6:20:18 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

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. While you were formulating that judgment of me, did you factor in the fact that I had stopped interacting with Chris a year ago? Did you consider that maybe I wasn't criticizing him as were you and others because I had long since been ignoring him? Or didn't you remember that I had announced that publicly and that Chris confirmed that I had been avoiding him? While you were formulating that judgment of me, how deeply did you think before concluding that the Buster comments were just that I was miffed over his minor slight of sitting on my coat tails? Did it ever occur to you that I addressed him as I did, despite my distaste for interacting with him, because I was sensitive to the concerns of others over the the potential for my comments giving him aid and comfort and I wanted to mitigate his taking advantage of that? When you come up with a judgment about me that is that shallow, go back and ponder it some more. I am not always right in the steps that I take, but you can count on my being more thoughtful than that.

To: one_less who wrote (51107)	6/15/2002 6:40:43 PM
From: Tom C	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Forgive me for weighing in on this. I don’t usually butt-in on this kind of conversation. It was not too far back that you had been joshing with a couple of posters about the stalking accusations. I remember it differently. I remember her trying to avoid joshing about this, repeatedly. Still others tugged and tugged. The general tenor was, either you’re for us or against us, step forward, tell us where you stand. My reaction to this would be to tell you to screw yourself. I’m not a part of your groupthink. As much as Chris disgusts me you’d be asking me to join a mob. I’d push back by saying unexpected things peripheral to your issue, like observing how you are behaving. That’s not siding or defending Chris. If you are going to start judging people please try not to be hypocritical. Where is the outcry for “MissyFit” who JLA et al chased to the comfort of moderated threads. . The "buster" comments were a breath of fresh air. I thought that this was consistent with her earlier comments. Show me where she ever said anything to bolster Chris. If someone says you are acting like an ass it doesn’t mean someone else is not an ass. I agree with all of your arguments about using overstatement terms. It definitely hurts the position of the person using the term. When you blow something up to monstrous proportions don’t expect everyone to agree with you. Opps… I see Karen has answered you, I’m going to go read it. Edit: A comment about "MissyFit". She does have some whacky ideas but that not a justification for harassing her.

To: one_less who wrote (51107)	6/15/2002 9:15:25 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Let me try. Maybe you should give up trying. 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. Talk about self-serving claptrap! If you believe what you wrote, you are sadly lacking in self-awareness. You, Jewel, more than anyone, relished taking on the role of Grand Inquisitor when it came to the bizarre witch-hunt to pin blame on someone (anyone would do) for Poet's suspension. Neutral? Rational? Cautious? LOL 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. No one, Jewel, has been more "entangled" with a cadre of other posters, nor demonstrated more need to win their approval, than yourself (note the "many of us" above). And tell us, please, who is the "frequent flyer" here who has a "relationship" with CH, and just how did you come to learn of this relationship? Are you willing to share the evidence which supports your knowledge of this relationship? (Surely, you would not place yourself in the position of claiming a relationship where none exists, would you? Don't I recall your condemning others for that?) Do such terms as "jumping to conclusions" and "guilt by association" ring any bells for you?