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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FaultLine who wrote (76435)	2/22/2003 12:00:04 AM
From: Rollcast...	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

OT: Isn't it a TOU violation for more than 1 person to post under 1 handle? Just curious. BTW, I admire your speed on the draw when it comes to protecting scott (or is it scott et al?).

To: FaultLine who wrote (76435)	2/22/2003 10:53:58 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

FL, My comments were a reaction to scotts reasoned posts yesterday as opposed to some of the more extreme articles he has posted in the past. Actually, i thought we were having a discourse. My views have shifted more to the Pollack view and away from some of the neocon rhetoric recently. It seemed to me scott might have been moving toward the Pollack view--perhaps John as well. But John didnt answer that question i posed to him in an earlier post and scott didnt answer my question either. I am perplexed as to why a question trying to discover if a posters views are changing, creates an argument among a whole bunch of posters. That certainly wasnt my intent. Out by itself my "which guy are you scott" might appear to be confrontational. If i had phrased it "have you changed your views scott--please elucidate.", would that be OK? I suspect you will say yes to that question Ken. What i dont understand is why when i ask that question, i dont get a response? I know they have no obligation to reply--I just know if i was asked that question yesterday after the Pollack epiphany i had, i would be more inclined to say that Bush may have mis-marketed the war to the american public with neocon justifications, thus fueling a growing anti-war movement just at the wrong time. In short, i would have admitted an error of judgement on my part earlier. Sorry for the length of this post Ken. I am curious how folks on both sides here publicly change an opinion. My mind keeps going back to those vietnam days when good men put ego above intellectual honesty. Scares me because ego is so much a part of human nature. Mike@flexibility.com