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: Neocon who wrote (75609)	9/26/2003 10:59:47 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

As I said, why bother to discuss it if all of the assumptions guarantee a certain view of the matter? Just the opposite, methinks. The view informs the assumptions.

To: Neocon who wrote (75609)	9/26/2003 11:22:46 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I am fascinated by your statement. After I posted, I realized that the way in which we read the statement said a lot more about you and me and the way we look at things than about the actual scenario. I think YOU were the one who stretched the scenario to involve outrageous behavior where I read it as simply not being in lockstep, based on a pretty bland fashion description. It occurs to me that this is a very decided difference in our whole approach to life and people. I am "determined to continue in that vein"? I have no idea what that means. I thought I was pretty clear in my opinion that what I consider a far more grievous offense than casual dress is the willingness of people to be critical, judgmental, and negative about others, regardless of AUntyK's dress. This I believe is a far more critical attitude in determining one's contentment in life, than deciding if AuntyK is at fault-- even if she is dressed worse than I assumed. And for some reason this really struck you as manipulative. I guess I fail in the philosophical department, but I bet my blood pressure is lower.