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: Neocon who wrote (67519)	11/23/2002 11:32:10 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

I must tell you this one more time, we do NOT rely on words in 3d. 70% (perhaps more) of communication is nonverbal. So we do NOT rely on words in 3d. I can't believe no one bu CH gets that. And I'm not even sure he gets it (since he could just say he gets it because it works for him). This simply amazes me, since most of the people here are educated, or went through some sort of higher education system. www3.usal.es Research shows that clues in the nonverbal "channels" of communication (how something is said) are often more important than words alone (what is said). There are many different "channels" of nonverbal communication: facial expressions, the clues in our voices ("vocal paralanguage"), hand gestures, body movements ("kinesics"), touch ("haptics"), and personal space.

To: Neocon who wrote (67519)	11/23/2002 1:07:25 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I take umbrage whenever someone suggests that because he or she is not in a position to verify my story, that means it is reasonable to entertain the notion that I am lying. Don't ever become a lawyer. You don't have what it takes. People lie all the time. Big lies, little lies, noble lies, nasty lies. My clients lie to me, sometimes inadvertently, sometimes intentionally. Opposing parties lie to me. People lie on the stand under oath. In this profession, one either learns very early on that a healthy skepticism is critical, or one doesn't survive in the profession. The same, I am told, is true of journalism, though I can't verify that by personal experience. But for you to "take umbrage" when someone suggests that until your statements are verified it is "reasonable" to entertain the notion that you are lying is, to me, breathtakingly naive.

To: Neocon who wrote (67519)	11/25/2002 12:10:35 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

I suggest to you that this conflict has become so polarized that no one is making any sense anymore. Surely CH and X couldn't be as extreme in their thinking as the recent posting suggests any more than the posse could really have thought that what CH did was actionable. Hysteria on one side has been met with hysteria on the other. I'm beginning to think that this extended conflict is as much about differences in temperament, a war over affect, as anything. My own is more like X's or CH's than it is like Solon's or E's so their underlying premises resonate with me, but those premises have been taken way too far when it's suggested that we can know nothing of each other in this medium and that one is a sucker to think otherwise. I don't see any way to undo that polarization. I don't think a rational discussion can be had in this climate.