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 (66923)	11/17/2002 8:28:20 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Hi, Karen. Good to see you back, and hope you'll be able to add something to the hopefully coming soon lively discussions that we can get back to once the posse decides to ride somewhere else for a bit. I bet you have something intersting to say, from your perspective, about the charges of voting irregularities. As to your question, the answer is that I did and do. Until the next play starts. Players who need to catch their breaths go to the sidelines for a few plays. They don't keep running around the field trying to make plays. If they stay in the game, they're going to get hit again. You'll notice, I hope, for example, that since her return from her brief visit to the locker room I haven't addressed Poet on this thread at all except when she's voluntarily appeared. When she does -- when she puts herself in play along with all the rest of the players here -- I feel entitled to respond to her posts, though also you will notice that I haven't taken any gratitutious shots, either. Of course none of the posse would give me any credit for that, nor do I want them to. But honest and objective observers can.

To: Lane3 who wrote (66923)	11/17/2002 9:01:35 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"when she's screaming that she's being squashed and can't breathe, it's wrong to not get up and let her catch her breath? Why can't you do that?" Even though X and CH have been "outed"--they have not become better people for it. Without improvement...what is the point? I don't know that simple insults or namecallings are very pertinent. That is the Letter X's forte. Her name-calling is not an argument, though; It is simply an indication of an arrested emotional development...and an admision that her "ideas" have rotted bemeath the light of a simple consensus. CH has an emotional disturbance; but he is self possessed enough to understand that a mouth full of spit is still just spit. The only thing that keeps CH out of the company of normal society is a simple and sincere apology. He is not a criminal. He is simply (like all of us) one who has a legitimate reason to regret, and to correct...