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 (66863)	11/17/2002 9:53:15 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You are mistaken if you think it got under my skin. It got under the skin of some other people here, and I thought it wise to point out the very reason JLA used it, and the strangeness of using it repeatedly as an attempted insult to the person of someone one has never met or seen. Big fat liar is quite a way from calling someone you have never met, a fat a**, and talking repeatedly about their thighs. Your ideas are strange in that your justification for his language could easily be used for any other discriminatory language that we all used in childhood, but it does show how far you will go to excuse JLA's conduct. That is good to know.

To: one_less who wrote (66863)	11/17/2002 11:28:08 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I didn't see it getting under X's skin, actually. It was my skin it got under. (I explained the reason.) I really think the subject of CH and X's treatment of Poet should be dropped. This has been a very revealing exchange, a marvel of a breakthrough-to-clarity in some ways. The subject may come up again, but if it does, we are in a very different position. It's tempting to reply to the red herrings poor X and CH have decided is their best chance to redeem themselves: In shorthand, we'll call those the SOP question and the Crime one. You know how I am -- the temptation is great! But it can wait. For my part, I may just let things remain as they are. (But I reserve the right, etc! I am everso proud of my Trophy for being probably the only one who's never said they were leaving SI, or any thread on SI (not to mention never turning anybody in! That's a different trophy, of course, but I enjoy the look of both on my cybermantel!)) For the record: It's sure my opinion that JLA and Laz should also stay away from CH and X (unless of course incantations are issued!) It's real old, and real clear, now. My prediction is that X and CH won't be able to resist ~revisionism (this has started already) ~word games (those have started already) ~changing the subject (this has started already) But anyway, I'm suggesting, not that it will do the least bit of good, that X and CH be allowed a face-saving spate of subject-changing revisionist posts and that they be ignored, and that the subject be dropped unless they can't bear to let it rest where it is.

To: one_less who wrote (66863)	11/17/2002 12:09:03 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 82486

Can't run it by you....my friend....hehehehe