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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (25956)	1/23/2004 5:15:58 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793914

I think of casual conversations as not really having any rules of engagement. Honestly and directly and sincerely addressing serious issues instead of intentionally distorting and evading them, is the issue, but moving right along. You've made a surprising admission. Are you sure you don't want to back peddle a little? Some distortion would serve you well about now. What you have said, until you, er, clarify, is that conversations on SI political threads, conversations about politics or social issues, or issues of ethics, are thought of as "casual conversation" to you, and thus don't require adherence to any "rules of engagement." You're an attorney. Is it in the courtroom that intellectual ethics kick in? Just a joke! hahaha! (There are "rules of engagement" there, but no one on earth would claim that they require eschewing distortion and evasion and the profligate resort to ignoratio elenchi.) I'd suggest that you would receive more respect and be more persuasive if you conducted your arguments on "Politics for Pros" and "Foreign Affairs Discussion Group" as though you did believe in the normal "rules of engagement," which are, after all, only an ethic to make argumentation productive and clarifying. Otherwise, it's just making noise, and signifies nothing except that an honest answer wouldn't serve your agenda.