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 (65981)	11/5/2002 6:28:01 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"There is a proposed solution on the floor. And not a snowball's chance in hell of getting to it. It's been on the floor for a long time, clear to those who advocate it. But it hasn't made any headway, has it?" There is an unresolved issue under discussion. I have seen two proposals on the floor to resolve the issue. One is advocated by the majority of persons who have written on this topic. The other is advocated by CH alone. The complaint about CH's proposal is that it lacks credibility or merit and is being bolstered only as a ruse. Another possibility is that his complaint does have some merit but the coexistant quality is irrelevent to the issue under discussion (Buffy analogy). To pose it as a barganing chip has the same flavor as implying that he would do something harmful to Poet if Laz did not give into his terms on SMBR. Only in this case it is holding the beanie babies thread hostage until his demands are met. Given that some of CH's complaints may actually have some merit but that they are separate issues, they should not be used as bargaining chips holding up resolution to the first issue. I am open to new proposals.

To: Lane3 who wrote (65981)	11/5/2002 7:03:04 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"There is a proposed solution on the floor. And not a snowball's chance in hell of getting to it. So, we are open for business. Let the proposals flow. I actually listed 4 yesterday. Most of them have already been tried and failed. Here is a new one. Poet and CH agree to establish a private (PM or other) forum where she will accept communication from CH under the presumption that it is reconciliatory in nature. CH knows the criteria for reconciliation which is that it begins with a sincere apology. The rest of us get no information on the dialog except that Poet is satisfied that CH has stood up to his responsibility in the matter, or not. The benefits of this are that the thread game playing is factored out and no one gets a piece of the action. The agreement from the rest of us is that we let by-gones be by-gones (on this issue) on Poet's say so. Whatever other coexisting issues there are simply become other issues. The problem/risks with this approach are that Poet may not feel safe allowing things to take place on a private level. CH may actually use the opportunity to cause more trauma. I would not hold it against her if she refused to participate in this solution. The other problem is the same as the current hold up, CH does not "get" something in return except an end to the issue which may not be of sufficient value to him. Or, CH may believe that Poet will use the forum to gain further unwarranted sympathy as a victim.