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: epicure who wrote (56165)	8/31/2002 2:29:43 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Because X the Unknown certainly is a literary creation. Well, I have to say that it isn't a very artful literary creation. In good literature, a character doesn't go from one extreme to the other without the author providing some justification. In the case of X the Unknown, the character moved from being very intentionally negative and hostile, and reveling in it, to being an intelligent, rational, generally positive poster. But the author gave us no basis for the change. So in that regard, I must say that while I greately prefer the "new" X, as a literary critic I must say it was an inartful transition. WWTFPIC

To: epicure who wrote (56165)	8/31/2002 7:27:26 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Because X the Unknown certainly is a literary creation. Like a huge epistolary autobiography, written under an alias, it is certainly a work of self- but it is not THE self (not for me anyway. If you feel "E" is you, maybe it is, but legally, and for the rest of us, I don't think you can expect us to think that "E", and the person who created it, are exactly the same. A couple of observations about the idea of the X we see being a "literary creation," and about the idea of "self." Each post is an expression of a self, is what I wrote. Of course "the person who created E" and "the" (one 'n only) "self" couldn't be "exactly the same." But that's not relevant. It's just the way the world works. Each sphere of one's life calls on a different "self." This a commonplace. (It's why I called the conversation "boring." But I see it's not as commonplace as I thought, so I retract that it is boring.) The truth is that there are multiple "selves" in any functional individual. None of those selves is "unreal" because it is only one manifestation of an individual. No, I retract that: making a literary creation is not "being oneself" in the same sense that beingis "being oneself." If I write a novel, or create an SI persona that is "a literary creation," that's a special category. (And a discussion of to what degree any conscious work of fiction "is the author" is a different topic.) I'm not the same "self" in interaction with the UPS man as I am with my husband as I am with a colleague whom I dislike as I am with my best girlfriend as I am with a rude receptionist as I am with my doctor...with a 'friend' who intentionally harmed my husband...a friend who has been wonderful to my husband...a caregiver at whose mercy my daughter is when I'm not there...a neighbor who has been a good neighbor...with the brother-in-law I love...with the brother-in-law I don't trust...with people on SI I trust... with people on SI I don't trust...in PM's on SI...in public posts on SI.... It's a community, here. I know many people here much better than I know the people who have lived across the road from us for twenty years. As I said, the fact that I use an initial here and not a name (with most people here, though not with all; many know my name) doesn't make it unreal and doesn't give a lying, bullying slanderer the right to defame me in ways unacceptable to me or to my husband in this epistolary and very real community -- though you would give him impunity, and ally yourself with him, however egregious his behavior toward your female erstwhile friends. Remember: In six years, I've never asked for anyone to be terminated or suspended. I've never reported anyone to SI Administration. I've asked for only one to-or-about, specifying that I was not asking for a suspension. I tried very hard in PM's and online to help CH escape the situation he created for himself. I think CH is a deeply sick individual who is a sadistic bully, and see no reason not to step in when, in 3D or on SI, I see a sadistic bully acting out. And I judge those who don't. Whatever they say is the reason, I think the reason is the standard one in human affairs. They like something about the situation. As for you not "going along with the idea that CH was dangerous" -- CH caused pain and harm. It was obvious that he was doing it, and doing it methodically and intentionally. It was sick, it was sexual, it was dishonest, it was threatening, and it was effective. (IMO!) I gather that you have a personal definition of "dangerous," one that permits you to ally yourself with CH against his victims. But... CH caused pain and harm, and your "literary creation" has been complicit, even mocking his victims.