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: J. C. Dithers who wrote (56491)	9/2/2002 4:58:31 PM
From: Tom C	Respond to of 82486

Do you think last night was good for you on a cost/benefit basis? You are a brave alias JC. I don't think the E’nergizer bunny is capable of understanding how she comes off.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (56491)	9/2/2002 5:49:20 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

I'll answer in two parts. PART ONE: X said she found it breathtakingly bad to use Rambi's real name in a post. She was shocked, shocked. You yourself jumped in with an extreme, character-assassination condemnation of me on that ludicrously off-base issue. This is just the first of your posts to me on the subject of using Rambi's first name here. You cited a cop killer. You warned people about me, suggesting that anyone who had had the bad judgment to let me know their first name made a -- in caps -- BIG MISTAKE: Message 17941273 I then showed that the first word in a post of your wife's, in response to Rambi's very last post, was Rambi's first name. I informed you that Rambi's first name and last name are freely shared publicly by Rambi herself. I pointed out that Rambi refers to herself on SI by her first name quite routinely. I showed that when your wife did it, X did not find it breathtakingly appalling. You did not, with this information that should have embarrassed you, retract your dire and insulting warning regarding me and names. Your substitute was to say that if it was inadvertent, it could be forgiven. Neither has X acknowledged how utterly silly the Rambi first name breathless shock at a breach of confidentiality was. I like that, actually, because it puts all her calumnies (take the "inside out" one just posted) into perspective: consider the objectivity of the source, as revealed by this incident. ...continued, with an fuller answer to your question...

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (56491)	9/2/2002 5:49:29 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

PART TWO. I'll answer you, though. Although I wouldn't have had X reveal that I sent a few (she suggested I emailed her "without stopping", lol, later changing it to perhaps seven to nine PM's and em's total (?), which it wasn't, but what's a difference of three or four em's between friends? ) unwelcome emails to X when she had freaked out (we were both very upset), it turned out to be an elucidating exercise for the thread. NB: X completely freaked out at a few messages she didn't want to read. The subject we were discussing was shocking to both of us, and I understand she was as upset as I. She threatened to go 3D. In lawyerspeak that we assumed meant some sort of suit. I may be dumb, but my husband is definitively not, and it was his understanding, too. That was no unintentional ambiguity. That's now known, and is a nice irony. And...X's freakout threat to go 3D was over what? -- What, compared to the weeks, months, of public sexual allusion and claims of a sexual relationship, threats to reveal personal life-details, to which Poet was subjected by CH, who had gone so frightenly far in his compulsion as to threaten a lawsuit so he could keep on doing it, who had ignored her pleas to leave her alone, who knew she suffered from PTSD, who knew she was frightened, whose husband pleaded with him to leave her alone... and whose plight X mocked, and whose persecutor X painted as the victim. It is a good thing, imo, that this contrast has been exposed. A handful of non-sexual emails over an emotional issue involving a third party over a couple of days gives her a freakout that justifies posting two people's private lives to others and threatening to go 3D. And yet, she mocked Poet's situation. I think it's good that that's known. What has been pasted concerning me, personally, and about a third party, by X, to others, makes NOTHING, I assure you, JCD, NOTHING, of the piddling information she's now disseminated that, very upset, I behaved, for a couple of days, in anger and frustration, for reasons we couldn't go into, immaturely and emotionally. "Harassed"? The world's briefest "harassment." If the word weren't so trendy, she wouldn't have even thought of applying it to the situation. Though I'm sure she felt upset for that brief period, as did I. And I do regret having sent her a single unwelcome message that upset her, ever. I don't expect for a minute that you will be convinced. You have been a trivializer of CH's behavior, and I fully expect you to continue to do with mine as you did about my, but not Rambi's or your wife's, use of Rambi's first name. It would be nice to be surprised, but....