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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (4923)	2/27/2003 12:39:42 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

I have noted (to no one but myself) on several occasions how persons on these opinion threads can jump on the strong language of a confrontation as if the nature or use of the specific strong language itself were the topic. That is one of the reasons I decided to stop using the language of the flames. I actually see it as more expressive and a way of purifying (cleansing by fire) an argument; but the combatants must be worthy and well armed to enter the fray. These SI language police represent to me what Hasek was refering to: "Those who boggle at strong language are cowards, because it is real life which is shocking them, and weaklings like that are the very people who cause most harm to culture and character. They would like to see the nation grow up into a group of over-sensitive little people - masturbators of false culture.."