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: Bill who wrote (55948)	8/30/2002 5:01:50 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Respond to of 82486

You have me at a disadvantage if you are able to retrieve posts from months ago. I don't know how to do that. I'll stick with my general impression of Solon's position, probably only having read some of his posts. Voting "not proven guilty" on specific charges doesn't mean you have to like the defendant. er, I don't think a husband is likely to be on the jury when it is his wife "on trial." I made it clear that my count was based on MY interpretations. Of course they are fallible.

To: Bill who wrote (55948)	9/4/2002 11:26:07 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Funny, from reading his posts, it appears he's in the 'guilty' column" Guilty...surely. But of what? That would depend on the accusation. WHAT is he guilty of? Not everything, I am sure. In my opinion, he is guilty of abusing standards of morality and ethics common to western culture, and of insulting the normal mores which prevail amongst reasonable people of good will. He is guilty of being manipulative, insincere, dishonest, and ridiculous. All in all...he is guilty of being himself--which is perhaps the worst that may be said of any of us. Now it is not his rhetorical devices of insincere misdirection and feigning of meaning which I object to, per se. I use all kinds of argumentative devices myself when there is a mutual recognition of a chess game in progress--especially if it is a debate topic such as a political or social issue...or some other polemic. But I make a distinction between this type of interaction, and the situation where two parties have shared privacies over a period of time, and have established the 3d reality of one another. In this case, one of the party wished the other to discontinue unwanted attentions and communications which to her seemed unhealthy, and which increasingly caused fear and discomfort as his responses became increasingly bizarre and dismissive of feelings, rights, or entitlements. When a person makes a sincere request to another to drop all pretence and "gamesmanship", and admits to being hurt and angry, and requests a human response rather than a retreat to feigning, obstructionism, misdirection, and insincerity....then even the most unhealthy people will usually feel shamed sufficiently to set aside coyness and smarmy arrogance, and give a genuine interchange with that person--either directly or through a second. Of course, there are those who are constitutionally incapable of standing level with another, and looking them in the eye--or of acknowledging a shared humanity and value system. Some would mock feelings, and would aggressively flaunt their disdain and smugness-as did CH. My hope was always that he would simply drop the GAME, and that weird phoniness, and simply address the issue, and say something straight and "real". But apparently, CH is not a "real" person. This would explain why several months of yapping by friends, enemies, and referrees have not served to bring out an open, honest, and genuine statement from him. That would be just too "real"...