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 (65050)	10/31/2002 2:50:23 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I knew about the PSTD and the deleterious effects of 911, and I never professed to have a close relationship to her, as you did. I must therefore conclude either a convenient lapse of memory, or an exaggeration of your relationship prior to the falling out. If the former, I simply do not believe that you "just forgot", as it was reiterated on this thread and others for some months in the aftermath of the attacks. If the latter, your main claim to sympathy for keeping after her, namely, that you were trying to repair the relationship, flies out the window. Whatever relationship there was was inflated in your mind. If, as you claim now, you thought the emotional vulnerability issue was a ploy, then why help her cause by acting guilty so often? You should have been forthright, rather than behaving with such dodging that, as I said, even I was starting to believe the worst. Even if we say that you simply miscalculated, well, it still means that a lot of this mess is your responsibility. I personally often found things like your "laving", on Feelies, disgusting, especially when directed at someone unwilling, as, for example, jbe, who practically had to beat you over the head to get you to knock it off. This creates a bad impression, and lends credibility to the idea that you have problems with women. As for harassment, well, a gentleman knows when to quit. It is simply true that JLA took this as one of E's hobby horses at the beginning, and was still cordial with you. Laz, I cannot recall specifically enough to say if he was more "in your corner" or neutral. You really should step up, like a man, for having gotten this ball rolling.....

To: The Philosopher who wrote (65050)	10/31/2002 3:02:09 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"My behavior was never legally harassing," The laws on the subject were posted and many here felt the behavior rose to a level that it could be labeled legally harassing. It was not put to the test even though you demonstrated some interest in the prospects. I note that your current position about carrying things beyond SI seems different. "nor apparently did SI consider it harassing under the TOU." How did you determine this? Did SI admin actually take a stand? I understood that they were simply being unavailable at the time. "Certainly I was careful in the wording of statements... I would say careful is a generous word. Careful to not get caught maybe. You deliberately withheld information, knowing that people had the wrong idea. I would put this in the category of contributory neglegence, to the extent that you deliverately allowed people to be deceived. "You will have to go a long way to persuade me that Laz and JLA were ever in my corner. I remember JLA making strong statements in your defense over the IHUB shananigans. I remember that you allowed him to do so to the extent that he found himself painted into a corner...a corner with you and one that he didn't deserve to be in. You could have prevented that. I remember that Laz made more than one attempt to sponsor you back into discussion forums at your request, only to find himself pressed upon by blackmail attempts by you. I mention these things only because I think your claim to be stating the objective facts was a bit incomplete. I really see no need to rehash all of these points otherwise.