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 (102173)	4/27/2005 1:03:11 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Your loftiness is impressive, but not at all specific. Did you get that all CH had to do was cease the sexual stalking, blackmail, revealing personal family information, and slander, and he would have been (and was, when he stopped) accepted back into his fold? I think this is the fourth time I've mentioned that. I just got a PM telling me that I wasn't the only one who tried by PM to help him, to devise a face-saving way out for him, and listing a number of people who were doing the same thing I was. Did you do that, ion? Try by PM to get him to desist by coming up with creative, face-saving solutions? Funny anecdote: I remember that CH took out of context a paragraph in a PM I'd written to him on this subject and posted it. So I posted the entire PM of which that was a misleading part -- my own PM in my own words -- and he complained that one shouldn't post PM's! The PM I just got pointed out also that what happened was not a bunch of my peers joining against the behavior of an outsider, it was people from across the political spectrum, mostly his affinity group, not mine, all of whom were disgusted by his behavior. You, ion, were the only person on SI who mocked his victims. There is a connection imo between your mocking of his victims, most especially of his main one, and your championing of his right to continue his behavior (which you agreed wasn't nice; you just felt that it wasn't a violation of the TOU, since the lawsuit threat worked). Is there is a lofty principle involved in the mocking part, too? The PM I got reported also that (unbeknownst to me, actually) an amicable solution had several times been almost settled between CH and his former friends, but that every time it looked as though things were going to work out, you'd show up and stir the coals enough for him to renew his bad behavior. I think maybe it's kind of a victory that you call my description of your position a "distortion." It means you're backing off your position and its implications. Because I did not distort your position: You played a supportive, buddy buddy role with CH, you mocked his victim (victims), you claimed that the sexual harassment etc wasn't a violation of the TOU.