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: E who wrote (66822)	11/16/2002 7:32:54 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Ah, E, you are so non-understanding. I've just finished watching the Washington Huskies demolish the Oregon Ducks in football. Go Huskies! The point? The linemen on both sides pounded each other for a solid hour of playing time. They all wound up, I'm sure having been there, with bruises and aches. But they chose that. You could say they both wanted to be bruised and aching, otherwise they wouldn't have played the game. You're like an Oregon player's mom complaining that the other guy hit her son hard. Sure he did. And you could have gotten a concession from anybody out there that the Washington player hit her son and enjoyed it. Yep. But to stop there is intentionally deceptive. Because they were both out there pounding on each other. And both choosing to be there. If the Washington player ran into the Oregon player on the street and pounded on him with no justification, you would have a valid complaint. But not when it take place on the playing field. If you were capable, which I frankly don't think you are, of intellectual honesty, you would admit that X is saying that yes, two players pounded on each other and yes, one player knocked the other player down. But she also made clear that it was done in an a game each had agreed to play, within the rules of the game . For you to pretend that X therefore admitted that the Washington player had improperely, unfairly, abusively hit the Oregon player is simply, flatly, dishonest. Which, sadly, is what you've chosen to be. It's a far comedown for one who long ago in the past was known on SI as a fairly honest poster. But that was long ago.

To: E who wrote (66822)	11/16/2002 7:39:12 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I have to laugh E. I do not believe communication is possible with you. But if you speak of what I said, please do not separate the head of the coin, CH's enjoyment of the conflict, from the tail, which is Poet's enjoyment. Ch got off on the whole matter and so did Poet. For CH being stubborn was sweet, and for Poet, the mastery of a pack was sweet, and the succor of her "protectors". I will not discuss one without the other. I'm not sure I really agree with the use of sadism, since it seems a bit overblown. If Ch is sadistic than so is JLA, and several other men on SI. IMO Of course they might all be sadists, I've no way of knowing, but I certainly can't be sure, and neither can you.