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 (67062)	11/18/2002 5:46:34 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"I do not know of anyone who would dispute that CH behaved badly towards Poet resulting in damage, other than Chris. I don't see any point in your looking for outliers, though. If there are any, they would be nuts to come forward." You are right. The Letter X and Christopher himself are the only ones I have seen masturbating the "Chris as victim" perspective.

To: Lane3 who wrote (67062)	11/18/2002 6:06:16 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

So we have apparently clarified a difference here. As with consensus, sometimes it's good to nail down differences, too. You believe without equivocation two things. One, that the damage was real. Two, that I caused it. As for me, I don't know whether the damage was real or not--whether we are dealing with reality (whatever reality may or may not be) or with acting. And if I was real I don't know whether I caused it or whether I was a catalyst for harm coming from elsewhere in her life. A catalyst, of course, is a neutral substance which is in itself harmless or blameless but allows reactions to take place in its presence which could not take place in its absence. It just seems to me quite unbelievable that somebody suffering real damage would not only keep on posting on SI, but would refuse simply to put the source of harm on ignore, and what's more would keep on actively monitoring the very thread and the very poster who was allegedly causing the damage. That simply rings false to me. Or, as we used to say, for me that simply does not compute. But since it apparently does for you, I'm satisfied to have identified a clear difference. If, that is, you agree that I have accurately stated your position, which I am always careful not to assume without confirmation.