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: Neocon who wrote (352996)	2/3/2003 5:11:18 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Oh, Ok. "It is my naivete showing through, then. Then the question is not just personally directed at me, you are asking why do all these people focus on X? If this were the first time, I might wonder too (as I did the first time). Since it is a pattern that has presented itself on several threads and over a period of years, I suggest the pattern itself should give you a clue. It seems obvious to me but it would be interesting to know what you think of my analysis. A recent post by X might be a place to begin... Find it Prove it i never said it couldn't get personal I have simply always maintained that our idea of the "person" is a figment of our imagination Here we have associated statements embedded in a challenge. The first statement declares that she didn’t ever say that the discussion couldn’t get personal. I remember a lot of dialogue in which X seemed to be saying that things that are said on a thread could not harm some one personally. Complaints about harm being experienced have been repeatedly discounted on this basis. She made tons of statements about the "personhood" in relation to posting on SI that were argumentative regarding everyone else's view of what constitutes personhood in relation to posting on SI. The challenge is to find an exact statement, when the comment only stated that she had argued along a particular vein. This type of challenge is typical and obviously a ploy by X to get people jumping through hoops and focused on the X persona. The original comment and the nature of the challenge are a mismatch. The Second statement involves the notion that “persons” are figments and have no basis in substantive reality. From the above we can conclude that discussions shouldn’t (or couldn’t get personal) because there is no rational basis for dealing with a poster as a person. I note again, that it is X who focuses the interaction with her on the personal, followed by disclaimers, and challenges...She could easily skip over the personal and focus on the merits of the logic of the topic...she does the opposite sometimes. It is more complicated than that but for starters, do you agree that she challenges posters (persons) to account for their personal nature, followed by discounting them or their position where personal. She also weaves personal invectives into many of her exchanges and then refuses to accept responsibility for the personal nature of the exchanges that follow. It is human nature to present and represent one self as a person. It is also human nature to defend ones character. X characterizes/mischaracterizes posters on going. The result is of course drawing a focus on the source of this …X