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: The Philosopher who wrote (67091)	11/18/2002 7:08:56 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

If, that is, you agree that I have accurately stated your position Getting confirmation is a good thing. As I said earlier, it's important to write down precisely what the consensus is. By it's nature, consensus is something that everyone can go along with. As a result, the consensus position tends to be narrower or less specific or weaker than what any participant would prefer. I chose my words very carefully. You probably noticed that I restated Solon's words. He accepted my words, but then he "paraphrased" me in a way that diverged from what I said. You believe without equivocation two things. One, that the damage was real. Two, that I caused it. I believe that there was real damage to Poet as a result of the incident. The events that followed were just too bizarre to conclude otherwise. That's not the same as believing that every bit of the alleged damage occurred and was real, which is what your statement suggested that I believed. Surely you can agree that the incident had substantive negative effect on Poet, can't you? Likewise, I believe that you were the trigger. Call it catalyst if you prefer, but I don't buy that "inert" excuse. You behaved like a cad on numerous occasions. By doing so and by failing to stop the obvious downward spiral when you could have, you at least contributed to the problem if not caused it. Surely you can own up to "triggered" and "contributed?" It just seems to me quite unbelievable that somebody suffering real damage would not only keep on posting on SI... I take your point. One could conclude falseness from that. But one could also conclude "over the edge" from that. People who are damaged do not react as they should; that's why they call it damaged, for heaven's sake. You may prefer your explanation. You may even legitimately find it more likely. But you can't dismiss the alternative entirely. You can't. Not on no more evidence than it "rings false." If there's more than a remote possibility of the damage being real, then a decent person cannot disregard it. Particularly when you have nothing really important at stake in doing otherwise. No, your pride is not "really important" in the grand scheme of things.