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 (51137)	6/16/2002 8:55:02 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I appreciate the gracious response, karen. <<it is easy to forget that others often are busy pursuing theirs independently for their own reasons and not to thwart ours>> is a good explanation for what happened, I think. My priority was urgent, to me. There are times, also, when one expects certain things one has no right to expect (something X and I agree about), and unshared expectations in life as well as in cyberlife lead to trouble. The background of Poet's experience, and mine with Poet, and with CH as a result of it, invested my experience with additional emotion to me. Duh. I won't go back and read your posts as I said I would. I think you explained the intentions of your actions thoroughly and there wouldn't be much point in spending the time showing how came to see it as I did, for exculpation (Jewel did that, for which I'm very appreciative, Jewel), or how you actually felt, since I'm satisfied already that my interpretation was wrong and you felt and did as you say. N pointed out to me that my feeling that CH had gotten away with a great deal over the months could hardly be an accurate one if you and I felt equally insulted. That would be the comic ending if this were a short story. Edit: Short story? I mean novel.

To: Lane3 who wrote (51137)	6/16/2002 10:33:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

When I was a callow lad, I used to opine that the best conductors were those who were faithful to the intentions of the composer. Later, as a director of several plays, I realized that the intention of the author was not readily divinable, and, in any case, a playwright was neither an actor nor a director, and did not necessarily know how to best present his text. I had to fill in the gaps. I also noticed, from recordings, that frequently poets did a poor job of reading their own work, and that living composers sometimes did not have the best recorded performances of their work. From this I was led to believe that artistic interpretation went far beyond fidelity, and sought to put the raw material (the score, the text) in the best light. What about intellectual interpretation? Although it has to remain faithful to the probable meaning of the work, and therefore has less license, there are various points where choices have to be made, and, in those instances, I think they should favor the author. One assumes that the author meant to clarify, not obscure; that he knew his own mind; that he sought the most felicitous expression; and so on, unless those assumptions are insupportable. This is applicable to the threads, then. I believe that one should try to read other interlocutors in the best light consistent with what one knows of them. If there is a reasonable alternative explanation to the proposition that someone has lied, do not call him a liar. If the person made a remark that could be taken as insinuating, but need not, do not jump to a salacious conclusion. If the person has muddled a point, see if you can unravel it satisfactorily. In my case, it is only when I cannot make something better of it that I become exasperated, and willing to question the good faith or intelligence of the offending party. We are collaboratively creating this thread. We can bless or curse it by the choices we make.