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: Poet who wrote (90220)	12/1/2004 11:55:04 AM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Po, I've searched for that post about troops (I missed that exchange), and failed to find it, but what would it have to do with whether grainne has banned people for disagreeing with her? Yesterday I tried getting someone to show evidence that grainne bans people for disagreeing with her. No one had any to show. Since I"m not reading many posts, I have to assume that if no else has any evidence of it, it isn't true. (As you know, I don't 'get' at all how grainne is responsible for greystone's recent situation.) If you have any evidence that grainne has banned people for disagreeing with her, as opposed to for name-calling, which she has made a violation of thread rules, you need to post it, imo. (Or acknowledge that your interpretation of what occurred was wrong.) For example, you (or anyone) could post an opinion unaccompanied by nasty name calling that resulted in banning.

To: Poet who wrote (90220)	12/2/2004 12:23:03 AM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 108807

"As for the other "accusation" I had made, I'll need some information from you first (for which I'm sorry!). Here's what I'd asked for: I've gone back through the past week or so of your posts and cannot yet find the post in which you said you understand friends who feel that the re-election of Bush-- and knowing that many of the votes for Bush were from the Armed Forces-- was so disappointing to them that they now consider the active Armed Forces serving in Iraq to be essentially on their own and undeserving of emotional support from the citizenry. Have I misremembered this? If I have, I'll look back further and produce the post from which I'm drawing the inference." ************** First, Poet, thank you for apologizing (for the things you apologized for). I really appreciate it. Now what you are asking for regarding your above statement totally puzzles me, and let me try to explain why. I have no idea why you are asking! Are you trying to say that I cannot bring forward interesting or provocative subjects to discuss at Feelies? Or something else? See, let me try to explain. I may have said what is quoted above. It is something I heard on the street and read about in the press--the very frustrated reaction of Kerry supporters to the troops after he lost, so they didn't care about the troops because they (the troops) overwhelmingly supported Bush. I thought it was worth discussing. Personally, I feel sick when I watch the faces of the dead troops go by on the PBS Newshour, but I can understand that reaction. What I am having trouble understanding is why my opinions, or some of the topics discussed here perhaps, are something that you somehow consider a personal affront or something you should make accusations against me about. We are not here to make each other happy. I can think of nothing more boring than a cyber place where everyone agrees with each other. Feelies is NOT THE GRAINNE SHOW. I expect everyone to have very different opinions from me--and I read many that I consider peculiar myself--but I want this to be a place where they can all be expressed. So I really am at a loss to clear up your objection, since I don't understand its basis. Perhaps you could explain (or stop being disappointed when I don't share your views).