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 (77025)	10/8/2003 5:58:10 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

Well, time to wrap things up. Take care, all......

To: Neocon who wrote (77025)	10/8/2003 6:26:05 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

”Could that be the hideous thing” Karen was genuinely reasoning with the mojo hypothetical originally. Solon came on board with both barrels blasting and no interest in much more than that. Chris showed up giving self indulgent speeches about his anti-discrimination activism. Solon went to solonism fairly quickly. I tried encouraging chris to consider the reasoning in this scenario. He said no reasons were of interest to him and went on Shouting from the soap box. I found that irritating and told him so. He proclaimed victimhood and was pretty much adversarial from there on. Karen empathized with the opposition and so was having asides with them. She tried to tone their dialogue down but was ineffective since she was also validating there position. At that point most people agreed that like him or not mojo should be just left to practice his way as long as he was not making a public issue of it. Karen promoted a topic in which she was invited to a wedding. Her idea was to include key factors that paralleled the mojo hypothetical. It actually exposed what she was not getting about the mojo scenario more than it exposed any criticism of the mojo scenario. On top of that several people criticized her for her view of the wedding scenario (now revealed as a hypo about Auntie K). I was not one of them. My view was that who ever chose to distract from the purpose of the wedding was at fault (mother of the groom or auntie k.) Karen made a comment about mojo being sheltered which I found ironic since the hypo paints him as kind of bold and daring in his challenge to the system and since she is such a reserved person herself. Here comes Rambi: Rambi posts a general statement just because Karen supplied a hypothetica situation is no excuse to make personal comments about Karen. Karen posted to me saying even “poor Rambi” had become upset by my behavior. I responded, clarifying that Rambi’s comment did not identify me. Here comes Rambi again assuring me that I was the target of her finger pointing. Well I told her I figured she was just providing warm cocoa to a friend upon request, anything else that she was attempting was very uniformed etc. Obviously she was being guided on her venture so I have also called it exploitation of a possibly willing pon (pawn). That was the ultimate insult (or maybe it was the ringlets comment). ”Could that be the hideous thing” When the reasoning of the mojo hypo was finally flushed out by you and I. It was or should be obvious that all of the powerful negative statements, and the positioning among comrades regarding the mojo scenario were unnecessary and extremely hateful and unjustified. Some bumpkin insisted on exposing as much of that as he could. Then some other dude was cordial enough to discuss it with him … the messenger(s) need to be shot … or at least ignored.

To: Neocon who wrote (77025)	10/8/2003 6:55:51 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

" I do think it should be cleared up ..." It's been covered. It is not what is important here to anyone. It is not, nor was it ever what is at the bottom of this. X, Karen, and Rambi were attempting Karen's long sought after gotcha, via this complaint. It didn't have the effect they hoped for and so their frustration is magnified yet again. Karen had it right, its pathetic and getting smaller and smaller all the time... she just has her binoculars backwards and pointed in the wrong direction. Like I said I really misjudged some people's character on this episode. I am grateful for what I have learned. In saying so, I am sure someone will accuse me of again committing personal attacks, or offended someone ... so be it.

To: Neocon who wrote (77025)	10/9/2003 3:46:21 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I have no idea what I did to her, except get a little irritable a short while ago" You missed this post Goofus where she explained it. Message 19383257 You know,the perfomance of both of you has opened up a lot of eyes. First we take the case of Jewels--a bizarre neurotic and deranged little monster with a crippling anality. He comes on board with a stupid scenario where he wishes to justify bigotry. He was presented with clear and concise arguments which eventually left him snapping from a corner. As all his escape routes were closed off, he became increasingly irrational and abusive. Finally it reached the point where practically every one of his posts (regardless of who they were addressed to) contained scurillity, vulgarity, and vituperative lies about me (and usually including several others). Now, do you call this thing a man? I call him a psychotic little creature with such a need for delusion that he becomes completely deranged when he is exposed for what he is. Now there isn't a person of normal IQ anywhere on this planet who cannot read his rabid (truly insane) postings full of lies and projections of his own deficiencies unto others, who cannot sense immediatedly that he is mentally and emotionaly unstable. It took this pinning him to the canvas with reason, so that he could not backpeddle any longer, which put him over the edge--and allowed everyone to see the extent of the problem. Now what about you? You are the only person supporting his mistreatment of others and his defamation and character assasinations. What does that tell us about you? What does it tell us about you when someone puts you on ignore and tells you why, and you glibly respond, "I have no idea what I did to her"?? What does it tell us about you when time and again you facillitate his third party insults and manage to magnify them through transparent efforts (which are, of course, probably invisible to him)?? What does it tell us about you when you chortle from the side while holding the hand of this repulsive little misfit while he indulges himself in his very own mental sewer?? You have one Hell of a lot to answer for if you wish to retain even a shred of respect. Of course, maybe EVERYBODY else is wrong. Maybe they are ignoring you because they just hate you without reason? I don't suppose it could occur to you that your behaviour has been terribly offensive to mature and responsible people, and that an inability to stand for and admit the truth is something which repulses decent human beings. You've allowed this fellow to spread the most asinine lies and misrepresentations...and you have facillitated it. Yes, you have a lot to answer for. But not to me. I can deal with people like you and your sycophant. But if you wish to regain the respect of all the decent people you have dismissed and insulted with your behaviour...then I suggest you have something to say to them. I know what Jewels is, and I know what you are. Do you know why, Neo? Because I LISTEN. Now you can hear what I am saying and make a contrite and a dignified response--to those others (I'm sure you can fake it)--or you can talk back to me like a smart-ass, and confirm what I have noted. Suit yourself.

To: Neocon who wrote (77025)	10/9/2003 9:14:20 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

I have no idea what I did to her Negligent skimming, perhaps. Not having "enough intelligence to weigh in on the topic," perhaps. I was trying to wash my hands of this but I can't let Jewel's abuse of Rambi and your enabling of it stand without comment. I feel responsible for Jewel assaulting me by proxy. I had mentioned "even dear Rambi..." on the assumption that everyone knew her reputation and respected her. I know you do. As it turns out, I set her up and I'm very sorry for having triggered what ensued. Rambi is not my "pon." She does not have the teflon temperament that I do. I tried to discourage her intervention with an earlier comment something along the lines of "thanks, mom" but she apparently reacted to something that crossed the lines we have drawn, such that they are. She made that very clear, I thought, hence my comment about negligent skimming. This is what Jewel said that triggered Rambi's intervention. <<As karen has discribed the life she has created for her self, I have found her to be the single most sheltered, risk-averse adult that I have ever encountered.>> This thread doesn't have much in the way of standards. Posters insult each other all the time. But we have discussed standards and I thought there was a consensus that insulting people's personal lives was out of bounds. Rambi's intervention couldn't have been more clear. She expressed it directly. I don't think calling someone's life sheltered or risk averse is much of an insult. I don't know that either or those characterizations is insulting at all, merely descriptive. But Jewel's intent was to characterize my life as somehow pitiful and that does cross the line. I didn't react to it that way. I merely considered it part of his lob-back strategy. But Rambi was asserting a standard she had basis to assert. If she received any guff about that, it should have been on that point, not some wild barrage of abuse. Cocoa, my ass! I expect you to do the honorable thing and take a moment from the end-zone dance you two are sharing back on Jewel's twenty yard line (this high-fiving that so offends him when I appear to him to be doing it) and acknowledge the reasonableness of her point. (While you are at it, you might want to consider if Rambi's reaction to your dance might not warrant a modicum of introspection on your part.)