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 (51459)	6/18/2002 8:11:45 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I know that you did quite a bit of research to come up with that argument. Research? What research? I read X's gratuitous, non-sequitur crack about "other forces" to Rambi. So I merely clicked on my two posts about the TOU, neither of which was nasty though both of which took a different and wryer view of the TOU than X's, and then on X's nasty reply -- the first nastiness in the conversation. And there was CH's nastiness, too, and X's assent to it. An accusation was made to Rambi that things were pleasant until "other forces" made them otherwise. You, who so seldom step in whatever the extremity of the situation, have decided to make an exception in this case to defend X. Forgive me if I note that you didn't remonstrate with X when she responded to my posts nastily and reported the exchange nastily and unfairly. It is only when I post what happened, all three links, because they tell the whole story of whether X's description to penni of what happened is fair or unfair, that you step in with the "you did quite a bit of research" oddity, and "there is enough blame to go around," the joke-cliche line used by government officials to avoid placing the blame where it is due. I showed you X's blame: It consists in the nasty post to me, her assent to CH's, and the inaccurate description of what happened to Rambi. Now please let me see my balancing "blame" acts. Is it that my 'take' on the TOU were skeptical, wry, different from X's? Is that what balances the "blame" in your view? This is so weird. I did think that since only three posts were involved until the nastiness commenced, introduced by X, obfuscation would be awfully difficult.