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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (17847)	7/19/2002 9:56:33 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

If someone disagrees with you, you post to other people, like JLA and Jewel, and ask them to "explain" it to the other person - as if your communication skills were insufficient to make to needed points. Actually, I think the tactic is supposed to make you appear to be the one who is mentally "challenged"....

To: Bill who wrote (17847)	7/19/2002 11:52:28 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 21057

Clearly this is an issue of disagreement, not of explanation. I find this transaction between us utterly fascinating. I find myself much more interested in why we are "disagreeing" than I am in what Bush or the SEC did or didn't do. BTW, that is a really annoying habit you have. If someone disagrees with you, you post to other people, like JLA and Jewel, and ask them to "explain" it to the other person - as if your communication skills were insufficient to make to needed points. The particular point I'm making seems so utterly obvious to me that it boggles my mind that you don't seem to understand it. So I'm fishing around for some way to explain that phenomenon to myself more than to explain my argument to you. My first reaction when these situations occur is always that I'm not expressing myself clearly so I try making my point different ways. My second reaction is always that the other party is just dumb, but I have enough experience with you that I discount that as an explanation. The next option is that you aren't hearing me for one reason of another. Partisan bias occurs to me as a potential explanation given that you are so very partisan. So this is why I asked people you might trust and who seem to understand my argument to explain it to you thinking maybe your openness to the argument is being blocked by your assessment of me as an adversary or someone you just don't like. Or that they may be more understanding of how you're looking at the matter so they can express what I'm saying in a way that resonates with you where I can't. Or that somehow that dialog between you and them might give me an insight on why we aren't communicating. Another possibility is that you do, indeed, get the point but for some reason refuse to acknowledge it. Clearly this is an issue of disagreement, not of explanation. I believe if you did your homework and read all the documents, you'd come closer to my POV. But I'm not going to ask your buddies to help you read the documents. I also typically go back and review what the other person is saying to see if I can find some insight that I previously missed, something that I'm not "getting." I've reviewed some of your recent posts. And I found the link to the SEC action memo in my browser history. There's so much stuff in there that I can't find the link to the other materials and, as we all know, the SI search is being uncooperative. Would you mind giving it to me again if it's handy? Bill, I don't see this as a disagreement. I think it is more likely a failure to understand each other. But if you'll give me the link, I'll review those other materials more carefully and see if I can identify a point of disagreement. Right now I'm headed for the pool for my morning swim. Maybe that will clear some cobwebs. EDIT: I just returned from my swim to find I had left this reply in preview mode. Like I said, cobwebs. <g>