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 (75642)	9/26/2003 12:48:18 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Well, if that were your intention, it didn't come across well at all. At least not to me, and as far as I can see not to anyone else. But if you were starting like Jewel, you're also following his example of changing the scenario in mid stream. You clearly indicated in the original scenario that you were dressed distinctively differently, and intentionally so, to make a point that others should dress comfortably instead of formally. Now you say that you're dressed in basically unexceptional clothing except for the fabric. If you really are unexceptional, how are you making any statement of belief or principle that others should recognize? It's only BECAUSE others react strongly to your attire that you are able to amke a point. Wearing clothing that is basically indistinguishable from a black pants suit doesn't qualify as being an eccentric or kook.

To: Lane3 who wrote (75642)	9/26/2003 12:53:50 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I can see the creation of a parallel case, although I do not think that this qualifies, which has a lot to do with my siding with Jewel in the one case, and against the "kook" in the other case.......

To: Lane3 who wrote (75642)	9/26/2003 3:33:49 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"My hypothetical was crafted to parallel the hypothetical about Mojo..." It was not a parallel. It was a passive aggressive, disengenuous attempt to declare a gotcha. Auntie K. imposed her political issue, (how people should dress) on a host who had gone to great lengths to provide a gayla affair. She put her petty issue ahead of, her host, and the other members of the wedding party. Her purposes were incompatible with the event she had agreed to honor (by virtue of accepting the invitation). She could have refused to participate on her (fake, issue of conscience) but she didn't. So, it was nothing more that acting childish in an attempt to make a point not about cloths but about mojo. In short, she betrayed everyone to get some negative attention, rather than none, from all. Sad case. What is it that so offends you about mojo? He is providing a good service, is a successful business man and likes his life and work. He is doing harm to no one... You should really come clean on what is bothering you...

To: Lane3 who wrote (75642)	10/1/2003 5:02:04 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

There are a lot of similarities between the scenarios but there is a very important difference. Anyone who Mojo doesn't want to take on as a client can just go to another masseur with no real loss and Mojo wasn't trying to force his opinions on others he was just living by them himself. He wasn't forcing himself in to a situation where his actions reasonably (or probably even unreasonably) would cause distress in others. However the woman who wants to dress casually at the wedding will be distressing others. Auntie K is pushing her opinions on to others more then Mojo is. Also there are different consequences if they hold on to their beliefs in the face of opposition. Auntie missing out on the wedding would not normally be considered as severe of consequences as the masseur being kicked out of his profession or facing discrimination lawsuits. Tim