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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (89405)	11/23/2004 12:32:30 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

You can say something is wrong, without going after the person who says it. Why is this important? Because often when one goes after someone, one engages in behavior that looks even worse than what was said, and rather than discussing an idea, it becomes a witchhunt against a person, full of nasty personal insults, which relate to the person in toto, and have nothing to do with the idea that started the whole thing. I see this happen often when groups of people egg each other on, over some supposed "unjustifiable" idea. People often will do, and say, things with the support of a group, what they would never do or say alone. Wrong. Witchhunt? Oh, please, spare me the hyperemotional BS. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I was having a very interesting political disussion with Grainne, who seemed OK until he/she gloated over an unjustified and unjustifiable series of murders. I found the statement abominable. I see no reason to further discuss anything with someone who holds the feelings that were expressed. And that, of course, is my prerogative, as is it yours to find a way to understand the statement, the only caution I would make being that understanding something of this nature without explicitly condemning it is dangerous as some things do require a strong response--no civilized person gloats over murders, especially for the immensely trivial reasons which were expressed. And, yes, they were objectively trivial.