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: The Philosopher who wrote (65045)	10/31/2002 2:01:58 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I thought we had agreed that you persisted in harassing behavior even though you knew that Poet was emotionally vulnerable, and dealing poorly with the trauma of 911, and even though she, on numerous occasions, reacted extremely badly to your needling of her, and insinuations of a relationship, and implied threats to publish secrets. The only reason I refused to ostracize you was that people were alleging things not supportable by overt posts, and which I did not trust Poet not to exaggerate, given her vulnerability. I know, for a fact, that you have run flirtatiousness on SI into the ground, and that you have made poor jokes about women's interest in you. However, absent clear proof that you had behaved as badly as alleged, I took a distinctive position on your transgressions. I also know that you merely increased suspicion against you by your obstinacy and coyness when asked about the matter in the past. I myself, on a couple of occasions, was about ready to believe the worst, based on your evasiveness, but decided, from what I knew of your stubborn refusal to admit fault that it was not probative. Finally, it is true that Laz and JLA were originally in your corner, however you choose to recall it, and were turned off by your ludicrous deviousness about the minister issue, where JLA had been defending you, and felt left hanging out to dry. The only reason I didn't take it so hard was that I figured out your little joke, which you confirmed by PM, but swore me to secrecy on........

To: The Philosopher who wrote (65045)	10/31/2002 2:50:22 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I have no opinion on the subject of apologies. Like I've said, I don't "get" apologies, particularly at this late date. But here's my opinion on what I would expect would make you feel guilty and remorseful, if you have a conscience as I understand conscience. You pursued Poet after she begged you not to. You should have perceived that she was in distress and backed off. When people are vulnerable, for whatever reason, the rest of us pull our punches. I don't think that requires magnanimity, above and beyond, as Neo would say, merely common decency. I realize that, given the shortcomings of this medium and given Poet's shall we say "stylistic ornamentation," it might be hard to recognize the threshold of actual distress so I don't know that you should have recognized it early, despite your close interaction with her, or even, for certain, that one was approached here. But when someone begs you to stop and her situation provokes others to ask you to stop, you stop. There is nothing in your rights that trumps risking someone else's health. There comes a point when it stops being about you. I realize also that there were a lot of other things going on that were complicating and mitigating and made it hard to back down. No matter. Decent people feel guilt over potentially driving other people over the edge. If you don't, you should. I expressed this opinion eons ago. Apparently it didn't make an impression on you. That may be because I was being less direct, hence less clear, due to my perceived need for punch pulling. I assume now, since Poet has returned to this thread, that she is fit, making that no longer necessary. So here it is straight out. Well, almost straight out.