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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (65754)	11/4/2002 7:21:52 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Had he taken even one, the matter would have ended there. I did take one. One you offered. You and I made a deal. I complied fully with the deal. You violated it. Those are the facts. So put those in your pipe and smoke them. And realize why I'm not really excited about any other deals you may have to offer. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (65754)	11/4/2002 7:24:18 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 82486

I'm thinking of setting up a new thread. One of the rules would be that you don't take wars from other threads in to my new thread. It would be autocratic in the sense that I would ban people who I though were causing a serious detriment to the thread and there would be no vote or formal appeals process, but I have always been reluctant to ban people and few people would be likely to be banned. Neither CH nor Poet might like the new thread because it would not give either of them whay they want. If Poet participated CH might be there as well and he would not have to apologize in order to participate. But CH would not like it because honestly he might be on a short leash in terms of saying anything negative about Poet on the thread. In fact I would ask him to observe a "no about" on the thread, meaning he should not say anything personal about Poet. I would hold Poet to the same standard but there would be no rule to prevent either of them from posting to the other as long as it did not get personal. If they can deal with this then at least there will be a place for the people here to post about something other then this war (I guess this thread will be for this war...) If one or the other or both don't like the idea I think it could still be a good thread without them. I figure I can't solve the issue but maybe I can side step it. No one will be prebanned from the thread. Even people like EV. And for most things I would not be quick to ban. But some of EV's post might result in a quick ban and any continuation of the war from this thread on to the new thread would result in at least a temporary ban. Any opinions about this idea? Tim

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (65754)	11/4/2002 7:41:25 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Oh, it would be a small collection. "The Best (or Worst) of CH". The really, really good stuff. I just wanted to see you try to justify them. Laz, we're getting off track. I'm not an apologist for CH. I doubt I could justify much of anything that he did. In fact, I'm warming up to JLA's label of "sociopath." Your post is all about why you did what you did relative to what CH did. I don't see any point in rehashing that. My point was strictly in the context of the element three I added to E's list--that the tack y'all took of piling on CH triggered X's entry into the fray, which turned out to be a disaster all around. You effectively pushed her into his camp by your tactics, IMO. Not that she went kicking and screaming mind you. But a little less zeal and a little better judgment and you might have avoided that. It derailed your plan. That's why I think your tactics are worthy of a spot on the list of key elements and why I think this mess cannot be fully appreciated without that recognition.