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: one_less who wrote (65694)	11/4/2002 4:45:20 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

there is one problem that is at the crux of this. CH is not being forthright and genuine. Whether or not this is true, and my discussion of it neither denies nor admits that, this is a strange medium to say that about. It is interesting that someone who hides behind an alias accuses someone else of not being forthright. Take that log out of your own eye before you address the mote in mine. As to being genuine, make up your mind. You accuse me of being sociopathic. But if I were truly sociopathic, then what I'm posting would--or certainly could--indeed be quite genuine. If you accuse me of notbeing genuine, then you are admitting you lied when you claimed I was sociopathic. You need to get your own act together before you get our there and try to criticize mine.

To: one_less who wrote (65694)	11/4/2002 4:53:25 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"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. " The above is true of everyone here (except Kholt), including you.

To: one_less who wrote (65694)	11/4/2002 5:07:37 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

They are focussed. They deal with conflicting evidence, by selective perception, compartmentalising, rationalising, by attacking its credibility, or by demonising the messengers. I'm sorry, Jewel, but there's a lot of that going around. The fact that you would attribute that solely to them is evidence of selective perception, IMO. I think that CH and X have in common that they are distant, analytical, outspoken, and indifferent to some things that others value. That makes them less than endearing to the schmaltzy crowd, and visa versa. So even without any infractions, they would tend to be less popular. Throw in some infractions, and they're toast. 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), You mentioned earlier dealing with one piece at a time. I had responded to E's post about multiple, concurrent elements. I really, really think that it's essential to look at the totality of this matter to have any understanding of it. Poet IS manipulative; JLA IS harsh; X DID pull the rug out from under the plan; CH DID wrong Poet, etc. It's all part of the stew. The single-minded focus on squashing CH did not accomplish anything. I disagree that the call for everyone to come clean on sins of the past is serious or anything but a smokescreen being promoted to disorient and further enable the issue. I disagree. As I posted yesterday, I think that is primarily a function of the different models of conflict resolution in use. I'm certainly not putting up a smokescreen. I'd like to see closure on this.

To: one_less who wrote (65694)	11/4/2002 5:25:20 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

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. Here is a classic example of perception. You consider CH to be full of it. And you reacted accordingly accusing him of misinterpretation and deviousness. Yet I giggled over what he responded too, also, noting how similar it is to the position of CH, X, and others that words can't hurt you. This is what you said. << It might be annoying and my language may not be according to hoyle but you would have a difficult time convincing me that harm done has been done to you personally...>> CH may have been a bit glib and overly cozy in the way he framed his response, but you DID sound like you were saying that offensive posts aren't really harmful. Now, I realize you didn't mean to agree with him and I imagine he does, too, but you did say it.