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 (59088)	9/19/2002 5:27:46 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Are you and Rambi sisters?

To: epicure who wrote (59088)	9/19/2002 10:47:11 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

LOL! You lied. You got caught. Thanks for playing. Try again some other time...

To: epicure who wrote (59088)	9/20/2002 11:30:22 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

I fall hundreds of posts behind, return, and come across the one to which this is linked, that you posted yesterday. I suppose the subject is over by now, but the ironies in the post I'm replying to need pointing out. I mean, really, X. Way back in 55865, you posted Choosing one person [CH] to be singled out for persecution is a gang activity ... 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. Two promises of confidentiality were broken. You were on the hearing end of one and the talking end of the other. And your talk wasn't accurate. No one was "singled out," there was no lobbying-type "gang activity," there was no conspiracy, there were probably not even any emails and there was probably a total of approximately ONE phonecall, (mine to Rambi), and it was not a "dressing down for failure to comply" kind of phonecall, it was a friend-to-friend "Let's talk, friend!" kind of call, in which many more areas of agreement about Life on SI than of disagreement were found. We were two people who existed in the same ethical universe and we were not enemies. I definitely assume everybody, on both sides, got and sent pro and con PM's--including you! This is SI, after all! Anybody who doesn't want to get PM's doesn't have to. And I assume you and Rambi 'talked' fifty times more by lines and a hundred times more by comment than Rambi and I did. For you to be lecturing on the importance of confidentiality is very strange to me. You got a secret from our mutual friend, twisted it to suit your case-making needs, and then referred to it publicly, violating an undoubted promise not to reveal that you knew a call had been made! Unfortunately, Rambi didn't confirm what you said she would, leaving a totally puzzled JLA. You didn't mean me to know what call you were pretending was a "dressing down," but there aren't many people who have exchanged phone numbers here. Who the hell would be calling each other about BB subjects? It was just something you felt like tossing out there. A conspiracy! A gangup! How terrible! Poor helpless posters being singled out and pursued in their very HOMES! The phone, ringing and ringing, OMG! It's like Salem! You'd better stick up for the oppressed and misunderstood and singled-out CH again! CH in trouble for viciousness?! Call X! No one added any material to the discussion except you. You added fiction: nefarious phonecalls and emails. And I don't for a minute believe that Rambi told you that our call wasn't friendly, and very personal. If that call wasn't a warm call between friends, then Rambi should get an Academy Award. I think you made it up for your case. As for the content of the call. Isn't there something funny about you being all disapproving at my characterizing as positive a call I was part of, when you characterized as negative one you weren't part of? Here's an example of the nature of the call-- an example that can't possibly embarrass Rambi to have mentioned and that she will remember: Disagreement expressed by Rambi: Rambi felt I overreacted to having CH (who, you may have noticed (I sure have), tends to hang on to things and repost references to them, especially things involving sex) post the lie about being surprised that E had "confessed" she was "into viewing sadistic porn on the internet." Agreement expressed by Rambi: That had CH done a similar thing to her, using a "hot button" issue of hers, (she gave an example of one), she would have felt exactly as I did. Okay, we had a disagreement on an issue (her hot buttons aren't the same as mine) but not on a principle (we both have them), and I felt completely supported. It was that kind of conversation. I left it thinking I had a true friend in Rambi. If you hadn't decided to use, to make a specious case, your knowledge of that call, this whole thing wouldn't have happened. I dare say you will find a way to blame it on others. I don't mind that you were told about the call. No big deal. I do mind how you used it, but not extremely, since nobody believed it anyway; except that it's annoying that now you're preaching about confidentiality and trustworthiness.