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.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: abstract who wrote (60465)	1/10/2004 12:49:21 PM
From: Dealer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

Dealer, who agrees with you 100%, be the judge. Abstract, That was in jest......I was saying I agreed with him in order to not do the homework.....more homework :-) You might want to reread my post. I do not read all of you guys stuff. However I am reading you post or I would not have seen the above statement. I would not dare get in the middle of you guys. I don't think I am educated enough in that fashion. I'm trying to deal with the simple things in life. Have a good day, dealer@nosides.com

To: abstract who wrote (60465)	1/10/2004 7:19:11 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

"I've kind of had it with your hyperbolic exaggerations." Well, let's examine some pertinent facts, point by point then, shall we? Like who is hypocritical on a personal level for one..... <font size=4> From: abstract - Friday, Dec 19, 2003 - "I would prefer an exchange of ideas over the assassination of characters." <font size=3> Also, all from abstract during our, "exchange of ideas". "I.... see rants instead of reasons and diatribe instead of dialogue. I've read most of your links and see posturing men beating their chests. A tag-team wrestling matching pitting the buffoonery of the Kennedys and the Daschles vs. the idiocy of the Lotts and the Thurmonds would be just as convincing. And irrelevant to "the truth." I have learned nothing here today." "I like being educated. But being brow-beaten.... persuades me of nothing." "....are you waiting for the government to tell you what the rest of us already know?" "You post between 10 and 20 posts a day. In over 10,000 posts, never once have I seen you say you were wrong, or that some other poster changed your mind, or taught you something...." "At the risk of being too honest, too often in the past you've sounded (to me) like Jules, in Pulp Fiction, who before unloading his weapon said: There's a passage I got memorized, seems appropriate for this situation: Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you." I have difficulty with Jules' attitude. It doesn't seem that there is much room for another opinion." "some of us think the post that you've taken such offence at was actually complimentary <comparing me to Jules, the religious zealot, thug, murderer - above>.... You have returned to blithely slaughtering, striking down upon me with great vengeance and furious anger..... "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."" "I am interested in the exchange of ideas & being educated (and educating)..... I think we learn more by having a polite, perhaps intense, discussion of ideas, not an argument." "Wow. You are amazingly insulting." "I reiterate my questions and you refuse to answer them and instead tread new depths. Enjoy them. I refuse your bait." "I've kind of had it with your hyperbolic exaggerations." Message 19616862 Message 19616996 Message 19618430 Message 19625636 Message 19626304 Message 19628111 Message 19672401 Message 19674459 Message 19674999 Message 19675313

To: abstract who wrote (60465)	1/10/2004 9:35:17 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

'I challenge you to show me where I previously mentioned any one of the three questions I asked you in post 60451:" Talk about duplicity. You've managed to change the focus away from what you have failed to do throughout this discussion, into falsely alleging something I never did. I never addressed those questions in the post under dispute. That is a fact. My reply was to a specific statement you made in an earlier post, # 60446 (that's where this all stems from). I took issue with your statement, "I thought Iraq had WMD as well and think most of the world thought so too. It just would be a whole lot better if there was more proof." I stated, "Recycling more discredited partisan sound bites...... Before you revisit any other discredited partisan sound bite, please revisit........" Message 19674383 That's why I said in reply to post 60451, I said, "As for any ongoing discussion, you need to respond to my requests first." You have yet to do so. That's why I also said, "You have had it your way from the start. It's become a circular debate. You are long on opinion, short on facts & credible supporting evidence. You are long on sweeping generalizations & short on specifics..... You, in turn, refuse to reply to my challenges. Now you wish to recycle through the same BS I have already discredited. Ain't going to happen." You were moving this discussion ahead with those questions while ignoring my specific requests once again. Ignoring my specific requests time & time again allowed you to maintain an unfair advantage throughout our whole discussion. Well, it allows you to give the appearance that you are scoring points without ever having to retract them or admitting you were wrong about anything. And you misrepresented what I actually said, twisted it around & subverted it into a false assertion while simultaneously avoiding what I actually requested of you. I'll give you credit though. You skirted the real issues & deceptively made a clever attempt to make me look bad at the same time. It may fool the unsuspecting, but not me. Now, where did I mention those three questions in my reply to you? The answer is nowhere at all. I never made such a claim. That's a fact. In fact, I did not ask you for "specific questions" as you falsely alleged. I asked you to back up your previously made sweeping generalities, lacking any specifics or factually accurate responses with credible support. You have yet to accomplish that once. Please read my unedited words closely. I did not mention those other questions. I factually & accurately said you were recycling discredited partisan sound bites. I then provided you with links to our discussion that established this point had been more than adequately refuted already. I never challenged the other comments because I was so aghast at your WMD comment. It had already been so thoroughly covered. I had no intention of allowing you to avoid my requests once again & continue that same pattern going forward. All irrefutable facts. My reply was appropriate. This is symptomatic of many of the debates I have with folks like you. Change the subject when facts & reality clearly refute your POV. Continue making baseless assertions, sweeping generalizations & offering vague opinions. Avoid backing them up with factual, credible support. Even after issues are thoroughly refuted, recycle them back into the discussion again as though it was a new point with merit. And that's precisely what you did. BTW, those three questions also fall into the sound bite category. They lack specific credible evidence or background in order to frame the discussion. Same BS, same tactics, some already discussed, some not. You are wrong on several counts. I look forward to your apology.