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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tsigprofit who wrote (5443)	1/6/2004 6:23:47 PM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 20773

I'm not going to respond to him per your request. I don't need an apology and I'm not going to give any. The posts speak for themselves and I made my position very clear. I feel he has an agenda and he really didn't want discussion. He took a very friendly post of mine and responded to it with an anti-Israel diatribe. I let it go with my first response but he doesn't give an inch. If I wanted to debate Israel, I can do that in many other areas. He accused me of being a radical Zionist without any basis. He says I accuse him. And so on and so forth. It really doesn't make sense to go further. It doesn't bother me one bit. I am secure enough to answer and secure enough to let it go. It's just a topic on a message board. This is a moderate thread. I read his stuff, I disagree and commented and he keeps posting it over and over to me and now to you. There's nothing further to be said.

To: tsigprofit who wrote (5443)	1/6/2004 6:40:01 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 20773

It looks as though the issue was the nature of my first post. rruff calls it "an anti-Israel diatribe." As moderator of the thread, do you feel that was an accurate description of the post? Not to make you go back and look it up yourself, here it is. Message 19650730 Is that a post which, on this thread, is legitimately described as a diatribe? Please note that I'm not asking you to get into the substance of the discussion. Just the description of it.

To: tsigprofit who wrote (5443)	1/6/2004 8:24:47 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

You asked me to end it and I did, but this character wants to go on and on. I'm not asking you to review anything but if you are, look at all the posts. This guy has a thing where he apparently needs to get in the last word. As far as I'm concerned, this particular debate, if you want to call it that, is closed. If he wants to keep droning on and on, that is up to you to decide who is violating your wishes as moderator. He initiated the contact. When I responded to him I suggested that he get outside the box, forget about the history and try to accomplish something positive. siliconinvestor.com Things deteriorated from there when I suggested that his constant blaming of Israel was wrong, that I disagreed with his posting, and that we need not debate for a few hundred meaningless posts, which has in fact happened. I was offering a chance to stop right there, knowing that I would not convince him and he would not convince me of what each considered the other's extreme views. siliconinvestor.com CH gets a bit more hostile and high browed in passing judgment in this post. siliconinvestor.com I responded as follows With your attitude, there would never be progress. You would continue to fight losing battles from generation to generation. One can always take a slice of history and support an argument. It's obvious you have a slant and it doesn't appear to be moderate in this topic. Suffice to say, I disagree with your entire post. It's pure propaganda. siliconinvestor.com He wasn't happy at my further attempt to end a discussion with someone I believe does not want a debate but a pat on the back saying, "you're right." Message 19652625 I answered with my questioning his posts as starting to go beyond what would be considered "moderate." siliconinvestor.com I was met with a pretty hostile example. "I'll come to your house ...." as a way of doing the old personal attack. Not that it hurts my feelings, but he called me Muff. I guess that makes him a Muff diver but I digress.<ggg> siliconinvestor.com I suggested that he had a stilted view of history and was not even trying to be balanced on this "moderate" thread. siliconinvestor.com At this point, I believe that CH totally lost control of any "moderate" fiber. siliconinvestor.com This is a "moderate" thread. Your view and comments fail to take even a remotely balanced approach. ROLFL!!! You are the one who fails to take a balanced approach. Find the single post where, for example, I have critized the current Israeli government actions, though there is much potentially to criticize there. You are the one who refuses to bring any balance at all to the situation -- you want to deny any justice to the Palestinians. In fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you advocated murdering all the Palestinians as the "solution" to the Middle East situation. It would fit with your overall approach perfectly. Now, I may be to the right of you, but if anyone can find my advocating murdering all the Palestinians, I'll post no further. If anyone should apologize, it is CH. I'm leaving out a few puerile posts from each of us but in this one he called me a Zionist extremist. siliconinvestor.com Again, I'm a big boy and I don't need any protection and I don't need an apology. But if this character is going to piss and moan and cry like a baby and never drop it when somebody disagrees, then I guess it is time for you to intercede. I suggest that if you read the entire package, back and forth, I tried several times, with humor, to end the exchange. I certainly tried even harder once you wrote to me. If you disagree, then I'll take my leave and not post here further. Best wishes and I bet you're glad you get paid as well as you do as "moderator."

To: tsigprofit who wrote (5443)	1/6/2004 8:48:20 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 20773

I, too, am glad to let you do your moderating. I haven't responded directly to rruff's lengthy self-defense. I will just point out two things. 1. He says "This guy has a thing where he apparently needs to get in the last word." That's a laugh. He responded to every one of my posts. Who needs to get in the last word?? I never posted twice in a row to him -- if he didn't feel the need himself to get in the last word, why did he keep posting? Pot calling ketttle black!! 2. He claims " I tried several times, with humor, to end the exchange." Yeah. The way to end an exchange is to stop posting back. Not to keep posting back with attacks and scurrilous charges. I even wrote "Since you think so lowly of me, why don't you just stop posting to me? But thinking of that would take intelligence. So I guess you'll just keep posting to me. Sigh. " Do you think that stopped him? Nope. He seemed to need the last word, even to someone he thinks of as an idiot. It took your intercession before he would quit. Which pretty well exposes the fallacy of his claim to have wanted to end it, and his claims as to who really needed the last word here. Not that I care about him. But truth shouldn't be tossed out the window, either. So now you know the truth. If rruff doesn't need the last word, he'll let it drop here and now. If he doesn't let it drop, well, that tells you all you need to know about that claim.