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: Lane3 who wrote (73250)	8/25/2003 5:08:25 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Tim, that has been my entire point all along, that it isn't nice. Actually, no, that wasn't your entire point. Or if was, you didn't make it so everybody could understand it. You went beyond it being not nice to it being intentionally and deliberately cruel and insulting even if the people themselves didn't care whether they were invited to the party. There's quite a difference. I don't know that anybody ever argued that it was nice to not invite that one couple. ] My point wa simply that the uninvited guest had the opportunity to choose whether to be insulted, or offended if you prefer, by that, or to choose not to be. I still maintain that the unvited guest has that opportunity -- indeed, either consciously or unconsciously MUST make that decision.

To: Lane3 who wrote (73250)	8/25/2003 5:21:16 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

One can only criticize people for not inviting others if there were reason for the others to expect to be invited, and to resent the lapse. It is not "mean" to fail to invite those who have no claim to be invited, it is both necessary (I cannot feed everyone) and part of liberty (I get to choose my friends). The person has to stand in a certain relationship to one, and the purpose of the barbeque has to be consulted, as well. If I have a BBQ for my extended family, I will not likely invite business associates, and vice- versa. The case where one invites almost the whole class is not nice because the exclusion seems pointed, but I have had birthday parties for my son where he invited whomever he wanted, up to a dozen people, not all drawn from one class, and thought nothing of it, since these were his friends. It is only a special case if it is structured to make the person feel that he is not good enough to come with an otherwise indiscriminate guest list, and it is exceptional. Under ordinary circumstances, there has to be, in fact, an implied duty to invite the person, or the person is being unreasonable to complain......

To: Lane3 who wrote (73250)	8/25/2003 7:52:50 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Tim, that has been my entire point all along, that it isn't nice. I'm glad you're coming around to that way of thinking. Well half way there. I said "it might not be nice". In fact referring to the BBQ I don't think it is nice if it is an intentional exclusion without solid grounds for the exclusion. (If one neighbor is a raving psycho I don't think it becomes "not nice" to exclude him). I'm not sure the ten commandments display is quite as excluding as the BBQ exclusion example, but I can at least see how someone possibly could see it as not nice. Tim