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 (65982)	11/5/2002 7:33:05 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

I'm sorry for the confusion. By proposal on the floor I was referring to the dominant view that CH "can't be allowed to get away with it" and must apologize. This proposal is considered by the dominant force to be synonymous with "resolution." If the posse won't move off that particular dime, maybe it can be made to work. 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. If unilateral apology is the only way to fix this thing in the eyes of most, maybe it would be helpful to give CH a synthesized statement of what he's supposed to be sorry for. Yes, I know how strange that sounds but hear me out. There were a lot of things that happened during this event that were, shall we say, sub-optimal. Some of them were careless or stupid mistakes, some of them were tactical errors, some represented personal foibles or character flaws or biases, some were accidents or misunderstandings, some were out of control acts, and some were flat wrong, as in immoral. CH has been accused of all sorts of things. Not all of them are immoral acts. So which are which? For which is he expected to apologize? Is he expected to apologize for declining multiple offers to be reinstated, to give an example of a charge that's gotten a lot of attention, particularly from Laz. His having done so informs the discussion, provides insight into character and motives and strategy. But is that an immoral act requiring an apology? Is he expected to apologize for name calling, to give another example? Just about everyone has done some of that. Surely the name-calling scoreboard can just be declared a wash and forgotten. He's been called a pervert and a sociopath, among other things. Is he supposed to apologize for that? Those aren't acts. I don't know how one apologizes for them. Does he need to apologize for his reference regarding E and porn? Or only for what was done to Poet? Does he need to apologize specifically for some of his writings having sexual overtones? Or is it enough to apologize for pursuing her to zealously? My point is that, maybe if the accusers could separate the chaff from the wheat, it would clarify things. All these charges flying around are confusing. If y'all could clarify the most critical charges and then bundle that with a promise to deal with his complaints when you're satisfied, maybe that would work. Take some of the chaff off the table both for clarity and as a show of good faith, synthesize the wheat to something he and his conscience can manage, and promise consideration of his complaints. If there's any remorse in there anywhere, and that remains to be seen, perhaps that will facilitate it's expression.