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 (56618)	9/3/2002 3:11:00 AM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

E, I am up at this hour because our dog threw up (noisely on the carpet). I know you don't need that information, but I don't wish you to think that I am losing sleep over what has happened here. Although, having peeked in here, I admit it is stopping me from getting to back to sleep. The message you are referring here could hardly (IMO) be considered shameful and vicious, unless it is the cop-killer reference which has pushed your button. I could see that such reference could provoke a visceral reaction. If you read the reference in context, you will see that the cop-killer appellation would apply not to you, but to the "whoever you are" mentioned in my post; i.e., the person changing their name. The reason I used it was that the thread had very recently been discussing an article about the cop-killer and his effort to change his name, and it was simply in my head as a lead-in to name changing. It was probably an inappropriate reference, given that the substance of my post was a criticism of you, and that one could think that I was hoping for readers to draw some subliminal connection between you and the cop-killer. That was certainly NOT what I was hoping for, but I apologize to you unwisely including, needlessly, something in my post that could have been so-interpreted. Or ... perhaps "cop-killer" is not your point .... and you just consider it shameful and vicious that I would recommend, facetiously, that people change their names because you have been revealed as one who discloses true identities. In the second case, I will not apologize, but simply disagree with you. In this case, I think my use of the name-changing idea was a legitimate way for me to have chastised you in a sarcastic vein, and is neither vicious or shameful. This particular matter is now laid out before the greater jury of readers to draw their own conclusions. I see that you have had much more to say on the other subject that has arisen. I am finding now that I don't have the energy to tackle that one after all, but will address it with my thoughts on the morrow.