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 (90144)	11/30/2004 11:47:16 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

you are confused you don't understand me i don't expect you to you haven't changed and neither have i we annoy each other let's ignore each other life is more peaceful that way. now stop take a deep breath think about it and push that ignore button.

To: epicure who wrote (90144)	12/1/2004 2:19:32 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Speaking of dead horses that are still gasping for breath, you posted this yesterday: Sometimes, when many people are all behaving badly, there is some principle at stake, that is more important than the individuals involved, or their individual bad behaviors ... I don't expect you to get this; I do not beg you to get this: but it would be nice if you could try to see that the defense of individual people really isn't the issue. A recap, for "the millionth time." Only Grainne doesn't know this story: That is a reference to your having -- years ago now -- defended and supported CH when he made public references to Poet's personal family life, and bullied, stalked, & sexually harassed her, not only here but jumping over to her IHub thread to do it. Oh yes, and he threatened to post publicly "private" emails of an "intimate" nature he claimed to have received from her, saying the only reason he didn't was that he didn't have permission. (When she gave permission, he dropped the subject!) He was ordered by SI to stop this behavior. He then threatened to sue SI if they stopped him from continuing his sexually-freighted posts and threats. They backed down. The unacceptability, and TOU violation, of CH's bullying behavior was so clear that virtually the entire community, including people from both sides of the political divide, when SI said that they "could no longer enforce the TOU," rallied to her support. "Mob" action (a term you chose) is what it is called when people have banned together to do something of which we disapprove. They choose a victim and attack. Community disapproval of bad, abusive, behavior is, much more often than recourse to the law, what keeps bullies from tormenting vulnerable targets. All that CH had to do to stop being disapproved of and shunned by the SI community was to stop stalking and threatening Poet. That is all. Your explicitly expressed view was that he had a right to continue because SI (because this attorney had threatened to sue), wasn't stopping the harassment. This meant that despite what the TOU said in print, the behavior wasn't against the TOU! Because whatever SI Admin did, not what the TOU said, was the TOU! His victim ended up dysfunctional and ill. She and her husband had legal costs and medical costs. You blamed her (for not putting the bully who was threatening her on ignore or leaving both SI and IHub). You defended his "right" to lie, bully, stalk, and sexually harass. You posted this recently: "It's only human nature for one's belief system to influence their decisions in matters of justice, whether consciously or subconsciously." It's true. Unconscious things operate. Personal temperament and other unconscious drives (other examples would be the drive toward obedience, or toward disobedience, of authority figures; subjective identification with a bully or with a victim; personal like or dislike of the individuals involved in a justice-dispute.) I've wondered for a long time why you haven't apologized for your role in that episode. I see that it is because "there is some principle at stake, that is more important than the individuals involved, or their individual bad behaviors." Or, you omitted, than the physical or psychological (and financial) harm they and their enablers do to their victims.