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: E who wrote (67746)	11/24/2002 8:12:27 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Everybody's unreal. Speak for yourself. Oh, that's right, you just did.

To: E who wrote (67746)	11/24/2002 8:15:08 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

Poor E Poor World poor poor poor

To: E who wrote (67746)	11/24/2002 8:49:57 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I do believe you still don't get it, though, any more than you get humor" It is one of those dead spots, E. Or perhaps it is all a dead spot. The only thing "REAL" for her is the VCR! How very sad, though...

To: E who wrote (67746)	11/24/2002 9:21:36 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

In order for the meta communication idea to work (here or in three D), the participants must accept that communication involves more that what I am about or what you are about. It involves both of these things, all the covertly subtle things about each, the interaction between them and the new "abouts" that would not exist but for the context of the circumstance. Communication is much richer than the speaker and listener and the objectives of each. The incidental communication that takes place is as real as the specific objectives of the discourse. It does not work to isolate one-self in an X circle. You cannot be a communication blocker and also an effective agent of communication. You can't "not care" about anything and have motivated opinions about its degree of correctness. You cannot claim to have insight about things that you also claim you would never give your concern, while pointing out to other open and inquisitive people that they never get it. Why would anyone read something between the lines if they were disinterested in the surface statement or the agent of the statement in the first place. Well, the only way you can make such claims is to be an X. But the X discounts all that could be known or not, speaking for herself and others. I have said befor that I don't think it works but am willing to entertain it for the sake of the experiment or whatever it is. The main place that I find it not working is when the X claims to be communicating in a highly effective manner, while no one gets it. That seems to be a contradiction in itself. But that is X.