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 (74730)	9/13/2003 7:28:46 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

It is not as though "sexual arousal" was some sort of cancer or untreatable disease! I'm just not going to the market today. I understand there is a potential for sexual arousal. Don't wanna take any chances with catching THAT. Who knows what I might do once sheer mindlessness obliterates my character and my values. I don't wanna take a chance on doing THAT next to the cabbages and behind the squash! No...I'll just stay home.

To: Lane3 who wrote (74730)	9/15/2003 3:53:40 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I used the terms "sheltered" and "puerile," as I recall, for someone who assumes that potential clients can't distinguish between a professional transaction and a sexual opportunity and behave accordingly. You're right about the training." The terms you have used are dismissive, condescending, and in some cases simply not applicable. The question was not whether his ability to distinguish, met with your satisfaction or not. It was whether or not he has the 'freedom of conscience' to set such boundaries. Your only argument so far is that he should either be willing to have that 'trained' out of him or leave the profession.