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 (65721)	11/4/2002 5:38:21 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I think the reaction was based on the implied seriousness of it. X implied that and held back information that would have given it the proper context. Then X used E's response to imply that E was being overly serious about something X simply thought was cute. Classic set-up. Yes, I think it qualifies as a four if you are going to have more than one key factor. #4 some people are just playing a bizarre head game.

To: Lane3 who wrote (65721)	11/4/2002 5:38:47 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Four can be generated from these comments, which find no place in your group of three. Possibly they represent merely a modification of or addendum to Number 3: How much did you submit to the Studies being done by Various People, about the behind-the-scenes efforts by Laz, JLA, and me to get CH to come on over to SMBR and join the conversation, including PM proposals, one by me, to help him save face in the situation? Did you submit to the Scholars, for inclusion in their Studies, Poet's medical records? CH's into-sadistic-porn posts about me? CH's sexual insinuations about Poet? His overturning the toorabout with a threat to sue? Did you submit to the Various People conducting their Studies your post in which you write of your view that "the net is the place for bad behavior," and explain that "that is why [you] defended CH"? -- because, in your opinion, "you have [ie CH has] every right to be as much of an attack dog as [he wants] to be"? That btw was was the same post in which you wrote "I tend to hound people I want to hound just like you do." ... You might mention also that you see your "attack dog" "rights" as extending to attacking a recently deceased friend of your fellow, mourning, posters. That would add a certain je ne sais quoi to their interest, I'd predict.