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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (352739)	2/3/2003 2:12:17 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

It is all bull, Bill. Perhaps you do not realize it, but you are completely mischaracterizing my position, and doing so very offensively......

To: Bill who wrote (352739)	2/3/2003 2:40:33 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

I started out with a post correcting Patricia Trinchero, taken from Mother Jones, as a source she could not contradict: Message 18518226 You started nipping at my heels, asserting that it was naivete, and not an ethical problem, that got Neil in trouble. I then replied: siliconinvestor.com You said that all the directors were fined for mismanagement, and not an ethics problem. I replied: siliconinvestor.com You said the words are never attributed to a particular authority, and therefore were an urban myth. I replied: siliconinvestor.com You said that they fined him because the S&L went bust, without attributing blame. I replied: siliconinvestor.com You made a big deal out of taking the phrase "ethical diability" literally, as if I had a large stake in that phrase. I replied: siliconinvestor.com You took the phrase about a disease literally, which I did not, and also made a megillah out of a phrase in one of my citations, even though I had only cited it as evidence of the ubiquity of the phrase "ethical disability", and was not in a position of endorsing it wholesale. I replied: siliconinvestor.com You played gotcha because I forgot that one of my sources referred to Neil as an officer of the bank, even though I had posted it for a different purpose last week. I replied: siliconinvestor.com You had another line going with me about how only saps thought there was a disease known as "ethical disability". I replied: Message 18527850 You then compared my quoting miscellaneously to quoting journalists who praised Hitler. I replied: siliconinvestor.com You declined to prove anything, merely asserting that you were right, and asserting that I quoted only whackos or people with axes to grind. I replied: siliconinvestor.com You asserted that I had stood up for the idea of "ethical disability" as a real disease, and also asserted that I was gullible, after saying that Neil was just fined for signing documents. I replied: siliconinvestor.com You reiterated, despite my disclaimer, that I endorsed the idea of a disease known as "ethical disability", or insisted that that was the term used formally in fining Bush. Than you take credit for refuting Patricia, and claim I jumped in, when, in fact, I refuted her independently, and you jumped in on me. Then you say I suggested there were criminal proceedings against Bush, which I never did. And I replied: siliconinvestor.com And blah, blah, blah. I will leave it to the candid to decide.....