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: Lane3 who wrote (65688)	11/4/2002 4:08:25 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I also think that a shred of acknowledgement of their role in this by the parties to number three would improve the opportunities for closure. I thought I was with you up to there, but I got confused at that point. What exactly are you thinking is neeced to improve the opportunities for closure?

To: Lane3 who wrote (65688)	11/4/2002 4:31:21 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

I concur, with much of what you posted. We were at the door of resolution. There appeared to be a very lonely and ready to reconcile CH. "Had Poet"s "defenders" taken a more measured tack, it's likely that X would have stayed out of it or brought a different position. Instead she jumped in with both feet, and with some excesses of her own. And here we are." As I recall you sponsord X to return to the moderated thread. This didn't work out too well and soon she was finding a forum here almost exclusively engaging CH. Neocon and you gradually joined in the discussions and later many of the rest of us. The old issues began to leak in and out of many of the topical discussions and eventually as you say "here we are" .... again. It appears to me that there is a little more to the story. CH and X have enormous drive and ambition to succeed but few qualms about how they accomplish their objectives. They are focussed. They deal with conflicting evidence, by selective perception, compartmentalising, rationalising, by attacking its credibility, or by demonising the messengers. They are more likely to disregard the interests of others when presented with conflict. In the case of CH he is very likely to write you into agreement and commaradaree where none has been established, even going to the extent of obvious misinterpretation of posts. I have seen posters tricked into a temporary posture of loyalty over this only do disappear when they see through the ruse. Whether any of the counter claims are true or not (ie. poet is manipulative, jla is harsh, Laz and others are loyal to one another as a group or gang or whatever, etc etc), there is one problem that is at the crux of this. CH is not being forthright and genuine. He is including all of us in his scenario and we can either allow it or call it what it is. It may be different things to different people. It may be about victimizing Poet to some, sillyness to some, sociopathic behavior to others. It is definitely a house of cards built on deceit that almost all recognize and only one or two enable at its foundation.