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: Sully- who wrote (30686)	2/21/2004 7:55:33 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793776

You completely ignored LB's point, so it certainly was not of much, if any, interest to you - so that's how I framed it. Perhaps I should have said, 'you managed to find LB's point less interesting than yours, so much so that it wasn't worthy of any comment from you'. Thank you for finally acknowledging that. Perhaps we have a basis for communication after all. My basis for judging the relative "interest" of the two issues was one of novelty. LB's point about how we fail to profile is one that has been discussed to death ever since 9/11. The one I commented on, the alleged PCness of immigration, was fresh meat. I had not previously seen any suggestion that the US immigration policy is PC. I think that ranking novel ideas over rehash is an objective and reasonable basis for assessing what is interesting to discuss. Others may prefer their own criteria. That is not to say that I don't find LB's issue interesting. I certainly do. Interesting enough that I've discussed it many times hereabouts. You might not find a rehash with me interesting, though, because I don't oppose profiling. By "interesting," in this case, I mean a subject where there would be an energetic difference of opinion. Actually, my point in responding to LB's article about immigration in the first place was not that I particularly wanted to discuss that subject. My point was about the way the author laid out a problematic situation in some detail, then abruptly--in one short sentence and without even a change of paragraph--attributed the whole thing to PC with nary an argument for his conclusion. My point was about his instant conclusion-drawing, not about his subject.