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 (67352)	11/21/2002 3:50:25 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Damn straight you never violated X. Sheesh. Leave for a few hours and I come back to SMUT.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (67352)	11/21/2002 4:06:35 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"But he rebanned me for something that had nothing whatsoever to do with SMBR. He lied. He is dishonest. His word is not his bond." He rebanned you for a separate offense. He agreed to let you back on if you followed certain criteria, which you did. He never agreed to allow any kind of offense outside of the criterion for reentry. Everyone posting on a moderated thread comes with an understanding that they will comply with certain criteria and that the thread moderator can use his/her judgement when new issues come up. He kept his agreement to allow you to post. He based the rebanning on a separate issue and there was nothing in your agreement with him that prohibited him from doing that. He never stated that you would not be banned for other offenses, so there is no lie. There was no dishonesty. For the record, I did not think you should be banned for the separate offense but it was a judgement call for Laz. It did not violate his agreement with you.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (67352)	11/21/2002 4:08:53 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Life is interconnected. That's the way it is. Trying to separate pieces into little boxes on the hillside without recognizing their interconnectedness is artificial and contrary to the way life it." I recognize the interconnectedness but not the necessity of establishing dependencies for problem resolution. The various problems have resolutions independent of one another, they don't when artificial dependencies are imposed....and you know it.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (67352)	11/21/2002 10:39:57 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 82486

I did X. I kept doing X. Hey Jewel, I submit that if he had done X and kept doing X, it would have fallen off by now....... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Returning now to radio silence...... [snigger]

To: The Philosopher who wrote (67352)	11/23/2002 8:23:18 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Karen hasn't offered any specific proposal Perhaps I just haven't offered a proposal that is to your liking. Or perhaps I haven't been direct enough. So, IMO, you have two constructive choices. The first is to move on. The second is to fess up. If you choose to cut your losses and move on, hopefully having learned a thing or two, and you eschew further discussion on this subject and avoid future statements that further reinforce the negative attitudes about, you would likely still have to endure a certain amount of grief off and on, but eventually the problem would largely dissipate. Choosing to fess up is a riskier and less predictable approach, although the benefits might be greater and more immediate. Or not. If you were to make some unilateral statements of regret and/or self-reflection that enabled people to empathize with you or at least understand you, it might soften others enough to acknowledge some of their own doings. This option would likely backfire on you, however, if there is, in fact, not sufficient humanity in you to present a sympathetic view of yourself and your actions. If the best you can do is to say, as you did the other day, that you failed to move quickly enough to get your nose out of the way of Poet's fist, then forget about this option. (The second half, about how the both of you let things go too far was better, but was only a starting point.) The approach you are currently taking is not doing you any good, best I can tell. Lashing out at your antagonists is not helpful to any real resolution, although you might find some short-term comfort in it. Continuing to provide fresh examples of those characteristics that provoked criticism also does you no good. For example, just recently you made a comment about the little red-headed girl really liking you. What the hell was that supposed to accomplish? Surely you must recognize that that particular line of commentary just reinforces the POV of some that you are a pervert and does nothing to endear you to the rest. Why would you continue that line of commentary after it has been made clear that it is obnoxious to everyone? Are you concerned that, by stopping it, you would be admitting that there was something unsuitable about it? Is it just defiance? Or are you really too socially obtuse to understand how unattractive it is? This recent business with Jewel is another classic. That was just the sort of below-the-belt behavior that landed you on my SI shit list (a list of only two) even before the Poet incident. Even option one wouldn't work if you can't avoid repetition of those same behaviors going forward.