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 (65401)	11/2/2002 11:29:12 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Fascinating. "They all want a Poet wins, CHH loses. And that's not going to happen. I have a different view of what "they all want." Having watched this from the beginning, I can say objectively that there were people who didn't care for Poet at the time when this began. They just wanted to help clear the air on this. What they wanted was not a win for poet and a lose for CH. Whether people were Poet's close friend or worst enemy or nuetral, most have at one time or another offered good and decent advise. You have played everybody to position your self to be in a win position from the start and up until now. Frankly Chris it is a no win situation. Since the beginning, I recognize that you have lost favour and the respect of several posters. I don't think you have won any prestige with the common community here over the past couple of years (X may be an exception but I have not seen her say so). Some of the posters have expressed their frustration with you and have labeled your character in very uncomplimentary terms. You have done little to prove them wrong. I don't see where you have anything left to lose by standing up where your responsibility and character is at issue. Actually, I didn't from the start. I see the potential (albeit not a guarantee) that through a sincere effort toward gentleness and expressions of remorse you have a great deal to gain. That is all that you have to win (redemtion) and I see no loss for you in this scenario. The problem is, and the confusion for many is how you do see the same thing as a loss. However the fact that you do see it that way makes any suggestion of apologies seem like shallow gamesmanship. I doubt whether that will lead to any improvement. Obviously no one else on the thread has endorsed the strategic apologies approach but you. That should give you a clue about how "They all" look at this. The score remains: CH lost/losing again/losing more/no where but down to go. Everybody else / tired of it Poet remains to be seen as she has always been as a poster. Sometimes creative and personal, sometimes testy, usually interesting. She has lost nothing by all of this and is not likely to be seen as winning anything if you ever decide to stand up and behave like a gentleman.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (65401)	11/3/2002 7:20:36 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Seems to me they are perfectly reconcilable. But it requires people like Laz, JLA, E, etc. to want a win-win. And that's the problem. They all want a Poet wins, CHH loses. And that's not going to happen. LOL. Are you a cockeyed optimist or what?! They're totally different paradigms. The mere fact that you're analyzing in it terms of win-win or win-lose demonstrates that. You're looking at it like you're mediating a family dispute or I'm analyzing an intra-office conflict. That's one paradigm. The moralistic, good vs. evil, sin and redemption approach is a totally different paradigm. In that paradigm, you don't "negotiate" for apologies. The opposing parties in this matter might as well be on different planets. Sure, they're reconcilable, just as soon as they shift into your paradigm and dispassionately analyze the dynamics. Or you shift into their paradigm and repent.