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: E who wrote (56411)	9/1/2002 7:33:02 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The whole THING angered me. Being pursued and badgered, by you, angered me. Having you not stop, angered me. Very long strange rambling emails that make no sense, but are aimed at trying to get me to do something I do not want to do, anger me. I don't believe I've ever done that to anyone. I certainly don't respect "don't post to me" on public threads- but abusing someone's pms? Sending them unwanted emails? No- if told not to email someone I would not do that. And I told you. I was very explicit. The only reason I denied it is I had no idea what you were talking about. You were calling something an ant, that i had files as an elephant. I cannot read your mind- and the way you described that? Amazed me, really it did. We just differ so much in what you think you sent and what you think you did.

To: E who wrote (56411)	9/1/2002 8:38:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

If I have understood the few facts in your exchanges which are nearly, but not quite, obscured by the other verbiage, she denied having sent Poet any PMs disclosing private information which you sent to her during your friendly period when she could reasonably have expected you have been willing to share such. As I understand it, you have not disproved that, so her original denial is accurate within the terms that she made it. However, you accuse of dishonesty because you extended the scope of her denial beyond what she intended, to cover a PM which you sent during a period of, let us say, unfriendliness, when it would NOT have been reasonable for her to assume that you were sending her private confidences which you wanted protected. Maybe you did; certainly you now think you did; but she didn't see it that way. So you were referring to different eras. What that all means is that you are both right, and neither one of you lied to or deceived the other. So it's difficult for me to see what all the heat and anger are about.