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: Tom C who wrote (51114)	6/15/2002 8:45:24 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Warning the post you are about to read may be too redundant for 99% of the people who follow this thread: "Silly question, what’s your responsibility for the CH/Poet issue or the CH/E issue? I don’t remember you causing it. Please clarify?" I have a relationship with both that goes back quite a ways prior to this episode and throughout it all. I have been, by far, Poet's worst enemy in history (based on name callng, flaming, political differences. etc) ever to venture onto an electronic thread. I have been an electronic friend to CH, most often agreeing with his views in topical discussion. All this came to bare on the issue at hand. Everyone took a role in helping bring a satisfactory and positive outcome to this tragic and hurtful SI dilema. I offered my support to both sides on many occassions. CH often refered to my suggestions as the most likely positive way to go, in working things out satisfactorily. There were many points in time where it looked like there was a simple and easy, as well as, face saving opertunity to do that. Every attempt ended in failure. To the best of my recollections, I have posted to CH in a considerate manner (tendencies to twittiness aside). "I’ve read them. You don’t like my distillation, tough nuggies." I don't like inaccuracies when your jugdement of me and a position I have taken is publicly declared. You are wrong about some of your premise and if you don't care to correct your mistake, that is ok with me. If you continue your attack on me based on inaccuracies, then I will continue to object. "What happened to the Jewel_o_the_West I used to agree with most of the time? Did someone take over the account?" If there was agreement on anything, I missed it. Did you change your monicer, I am having trouble remembering it? I did change mine some time back. But, if we generally do agree on things, then in this case you may have found a point of disagreement. Join the party. There is not one poster who agrees with me on somethings, that has never had substantial disagreemnt with me on others. I don't intend to start calling them names like "hypocrite" at the first sign of disagreement however. That is usually reserved for l/r "wingers" arguements. "When you highlight the behavior of others, your behavior is fair game." Hmmmm...so, you are saying attack the person not the arguement. I think I heard a lawyer say, you do that when you don't have an arguement. Well, unless the topic of arguement is a particular person's behavior. Out side of that "Fatty" points to "Anorexia" and visa versa...when neither of them care to deal with the food issue...is that it? Feel free, but I don't see the benefit in any of that. "LOL. Now you are the defender of the community. Who elected you for this job? Don’t confuse being the head of a posse with an elected office." I am a defender (not the defender) of the truth and of justice. When I am accused of an injustice, I take it very seriously and where I can identify a mistake on my part, a sincere apology is forth coming. Where a "so what" is justified that is just as quickly delivered. By the way, Karen considers what you are doing to be outside agitation. It annoys her very much. I am just certain that she is getting very angry with you about it, or maybe not.