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 (80007)	12/31/2003 9:21:18 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

:-) I don't think you have a chance in hell of making your point anyway, tangents or no tangents.

To: Lane3 who wrote (80007)	12/31/2003 10:12:05 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Randian "selfishness" is something of a term of art. I was countering what Solon said by using the word in the vernacular, which was my sense of how he was using it" I always use selfishness in the Randian sense. Selfishness, per se does not merit criticism. However, being self centered might. As to your remark to me that she was merely expressing her belief that a gang of bullies is worse than a single one---well...perhaps you could benefit from rereading her little flame. You might also reflect on the fact that this was never an issue of disagreement between her and other thread members. Nobody ever suggested that bullying was a value to be desired. As to her issues with me, I quit speaking to her after being inundated with literally hundreds of name-calling posts with nothing but snideness and immature attack to justify them. Try to appreciate just how self righteous and superior she was being in this post in which you have seen fit to chastise me. It is always others who are doing wrong--never X. And of course the accusations are always slung about as generalizations and without particulars so that they may never admit of a defense. I don't respond well to counterfeit claims nor to counterfeit people. And until X drops her haughty and high-toned attacks of moral superiority and snobbish elitism, she will get the responses she deserves to get. But as you appear to think so well of it I will write the same thing just changing the name so that I may benefit from your impartial judgement: "Sadly you never understood then, X, and you do not understand now, that what I did I did for me, and not to hurt Chris, whom I have no investment in. The issue was simply that large groups of people doing wrong is, imo, worse than one person doing wrong (especially when the issue of how wrong each person is, is murky, and confounded by a great deal of wrongdoing on all sides). You will, I think, never understand that, X, and since you are, at the moment, X, engaged in doing wrong with the other denizens of this thread, I will simply go back to ignoring your childish fighting, X. Someday, though, you may understand, X, that what I did I did for my own principles , which are clearly different from your own, X, and which would be worthless if I abandoned them simply because people emotionally disagree with them. If you ever come around to understanding that, X, perhaps we'll speak again. Until that day comes, you have not a clue about me, X, or my motives, or what I do or why I do it. It would be better if you simply refrained from posting to and about me, X. But if you cannot, I will understand."