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: Solon who wrote (65867)	11/5/2002 7:11:45 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

But there is no harm in asking you for an honest response on the assumption that we share a goal of getting to the facts, and that truth is better than evasiveness... Solon, I'm willing to answer your question, but I'd rather not do it now. I just finished making the point to Laz that it's less important to agree on whether or not there was a gang than to accept as "not unreasonable" a range of perceptions. It would compromise my effort to contribute at this point to a discussion on whether there was, in fact, a gang. I realize that we are on different tacks here, but I don't think we are at cross purposes, so I hope you'll understand if I defer your question for now.

To: Solon who wrote (65867)	11/5/2002 4:51:40 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

OK. I've given up on my multiple-facts argument so I'll try to answer your question, since you asked me so nicely. And then I'll hopefully be done with this... Did E or X or CH try to get you to be part of a "gang"? Did X PM you with pressure to adopt her position as part of her gang? Did anyone else? CH never made any effort to enlist me (unless of course you want to count the incessant flattery I was objecting to yesterday <g>). I told CH a very long time ago that I wanted nothing to do with him and he hasn't addressed me by PM since. So there's nothing to report beyond what you've seen posted. I was PM'd by a member of the posse just before the start of SMBR enlisting me in an effort to group shun CH on this thread. I reported that I had already been shunning him for some time so, for me, the action was moot. The next thing I knew, the shunning effort was superceded by the creation of a new thread for Poet. I wasn't consulted on it. I did get a couple of messages when I was slow to start posting there wondering where I was. Subsequently I received PM's from a couple of posse members, quite a number of them, trying to persuade me to adopt the party line. I would not characterize them as invitations to join a gang, merely to harmonize my POV with theirs. I did not find them unduly coercive and I was not distressed by them. I found the exchanges useful and interesting. And frustrating. X is the only person on this thread with whom I PM more often than rarely. After seeing your question this morning, I got thinking about that while doing laps at the pool. X and I PM mostly about what's going on in her life and mine, mostly hers because there's a lot more going on there. [FWIW, if you were aware of her activities, you would feel really foolish over your 24/7 tack.] What I realized somewhere during my laps was that she used to post that kind of stuff publicly but doesn't anymore. So I have to get the news by PM. X and I have discussed this issue by PM. We share our reactions to things. I think one reason that she and I get along is that we're both independent and neither of us tries to tell the other what to do. She has never suggested any tack or position to me. I admit that I've lobbied her several times, most recently the situation that was mentioned on the thread yesterday where I got her to not respond to Poet's drop-bys this last go-round in an effort to keep the good discussions from getting sidetracked. She lasted longer than I expected, but eventually fell off the wagon. That's all there is, best I recall.