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 (56320)	9/1/2002 4:11:38 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Whom one SENDS a PM to is not a secret. The fact that one GETS a PM from someone might under some circumstances require their permission to mention. How can this be confusing to you? I sent a PM to imp yesterday. Is that a secret? I sent one to Rambi yesterday. Is that a secret? Give me a break. You posted this: It was also clear that other people were singled out for not participating appropriately- and emailed, pm'ed, and called at home to be dressed down for their failure to comply. You wrote the above, and don't expect those in the group being so described to want substantiation? You wanted to use the stuff, so you compromised your friends (if they minded.) Those who are being accused often want to face their accuser. It's a phenomenon of which you may have heard. What you revealed by your weakness in posting that is interesting. You should be glad. There was some truth to your claim, because kholt felt "dressed down" by posts from those less tepid or more more zealous than she in condemnation of CH's actions toward Poet, me and others. As far as the phonecall you mentioned is concerned, we both understand what happened there, and it's embarrassing, I can tell, but not at all serious. I truly don't give a darn about it, except to feel bad for the position you've put Rambi in by not being able to resist mentioning the single phone call as though it were a part of a veritable telephone tree! But is sure is no big deal. Since you have raised the matter of confusing antecedents, it might be acceptable to mention that the "called at home" that follows "people" above was actually a call at home, to one person. The sentence structure makes it seem as though "people" were called at home and "dressed down." The reality is that one person was "called at home" by a friend, and not "dressed down."

To: epicure who wrote (56320)	9/1/2002 4:11:55 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Now, on to your "confessions." I did not share them with anyone, not even my closest friend, nor did I keep the pm or email or however they were sent. You have just been caught in a lie. You sent E's PM to me, unasked for, I might add. For some reason, most likely because I was horrified that you'd forward private messages of such a private nature, I filed what you'd sent me. I can't tell you how thoroughly disgusted I am with you. You violated E's privacy by forwarding her PM to me (and God knows who else), you violated mine by alluding to something deeply personal that I'd told you in confidence. You make light of PTSD when I'd made it known that I suffer from it. Then you have the utter gall to cast yourself as some sort ofvictim of other peoples' expectations! I think it's you who got a phone call, probably from someone on SI who you'd met and respected, someone who became, like me, thoroughly disgusted with your constant pot-stirring. In all likelihood, you're going to climb back on your high horse and do one of more of the following: A. Make a quasi-legal challenge (lest we all forget you got your law degree from Berkeley) B. Allude once again, in an attempt to humiliate me, to what I told you in confidence over a year ago. C. Write in a manner that casts you as merely playing a game of aliases, as though we're all here playing Dungeons and Dragons. No matter what you answer, your lie is there for all to see. I'll be happy to let Jeff have access to my account to confirm that the PM did indeed come from you, so don't even think of playing that angle. How can someone with three young children spend so much time on the internet and still believe she's a competent mother? That's a rhetorical question. I already know the answer: an utter lack of self-knowledge. For as many things as you know, you know so little about yourself.