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: Neocon who wrote (65048)	10/31/2002 2:32:53 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Thanks for the post. Some comments. My behavior was never legally harassing, nor apparently did SI consider it harassing under the TOU. Therefore, whether that term is appropriate depends on your definition of it. Used legally, it is fairly objective. Used informally, it is highly subjective. As I noted in my other posts, if repeatedly posting in an unwelcome way to other posters constitutes harassment, there is a lot of it going on here, and I will be part of a group apology, but do not consider it my responsibility to apologize for conduct others deem acceptable on this thread. As to the emotioinally vulnerable issue, this is a big issue for E, but the fact is, as I think I have posted before, that if Poet ever did disclose to me her experience of PTSD, which I frankly don't recall her doing up to the post that E put up, I hadn't retained it in my mind, so was not intentionally targeting it as E charges. Nor do I recall being aware that she had been traumatized by 9/11 any more than the rest of us. As to emotional vulnerability, that is a game which Poet played with a number of other posters on SI. I was warned in PMs by several other long-term SI posters that she had a practice of setting up on-line friendships and then turning on those former friends, claiming emotional vulnerability, and trying to get them in trouble with SI. I could name names, but won't here. That doesn't mean, I agree, that her claims of emotional vulnerability weren't legitimate in this case, but it does, IMO, justify me in being quite skeptical of them and assuming that in this case also it was a ploy. I will agree that E strongly argued to the contrary with me, but in face of the messages I was getting from other long-term SI posters, she frankly didn't persuade me. Nor, frankly, to this day do I know the truth. As to running flirtatiousness into the ground, it is probably fair to say that I occasionaly carried the spirit of Beltane beyond its reasonable bounds. But all this was to aliases, people who had no personal knowledge of me outside of SI, and I think it's also fair to say that no reasonable person would have taken it seriously, though some did take offense. As to poor jokes, my wife would agree with you that my sense of humor isn't always up to the highest social standards. I plead guilty there. As to coyness and artful dodging, that is, IMO, totally fair in the artificial air of SI. I don't think I actually lied in any of my posts. Certainly I was careful in the wording of statements, but we are all on this thread competent in the use of language and if other people misconstrue statements or draw logically incorrect assumption, that is part of what I view as the game of SI. You will have to go a long way to persuade me that Laz and JLA were ever in my corner. You might persuade me that there was a brief time when they were neutrals, though you would have to go some even to persuade me of that. But in my corner? I doubt either will even try to claim that.