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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (135321)	6/2/2004 8:55:44 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

If you read my conversation with C2 you will find that right after admitting that I was right about one thing, he (she?) posted another misstatement about what I had said, or what I thought- I can't remember which it was now. It was amazing, really. That's why I said no conversation was possible- it's no fun to talk to people one has to correct about wild misunderstandings every post, or every other post, at least it isn't any fun for me- perhaps other people enjoy it. The baseless statements were therefore C2 's imaginings of what I might think, or of how I might be the opposite of C2, imaginings that were way off base. Thanks for asking.

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (135321)	6/2/2004 9:16:05 AM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

You are certainly the one to talk about "comprehension", in some neoconese sense of the word or other anyway. What I wrote, precisely, was: Would you care to say who, exactly, are the "many" who post here you "think", (in the "facts and logic" sense of course), actually hold the views you just made up? Just wondering. #reply-20181779 I'm still waiting to find out the "many who post here" who honestly "think" there is no such thing as dangerous Islamic radicalism, we need to use the oceans as moats, Islamofascism is an Israeli/Jewish neocon bugbear designed to mask our support for the Israel, we have bigger problems than Islamic radicalism, Rumsfeld and Bush are more dangerous than Osama. Your three unattributed "counterexamples" are not all that well correlated with C2's statement. Except in some odd "merging points 3 and 4, going to 4" sense that only aficionados of official neocon "facts and logic" could appreciate.