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: Oral Roberts who wrote (105269)	5/27/2005 11:25:14 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

I see. You feel the need to attack me personally. If it were merely statements you were interested in, you would be talking about statements, and attacking the statements and not be talking about me- since that is completely unnecessary. Talk about bamboozeling (sp?) Thanks. That is all I need to know. You do not need to attack other people in order to get your point across, no matter how wonderful you think your point is. I think it always weakens the point you are making, and turns off even people who might have listened to you.

To: Oral Roberts who wrote (105269)	5/27/2005 9:22:39 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

You repeat and repeat your assertion that ionesco "claimed" to be an NRA member, that is, lied about it. Your only evidence for this ugly and rude accusation is that she used the term "machine gun" incorrectly. She says she is a "well-armed liberal," and you have no reason whatever to doubt that, or to doubt that she was a member of the NRA until she became disillusioned with certain of their policies. There is no terminology-test for membership. In fact, you can give an NRA membership as a gift if you feel like it. I know someone who's never owned a gun, wouldn't know a water pistol from an uzi, didn't let his children play with guns, and is an NRA member. Like me, he knows what the Second Amendment says, and is a supporter of it. I have often argued on SI for Second Amendment rights, but for the same reason ionesco stopped sending in her dues, I wouldn't join the NRA. It appears to me that your statements are made for no reason except to offend or hurt or drive her away. I conclude this from an examination of their content. You are not alone in posting nonsensical, ugly, gratuitous offensiveness on this thread. If I were Grainne, I'd probably ban even the posters who are more cunning than you in designing their nasty ad hominems. No, actually I wouldn't. There is something fascinating about watching what shame has done to the character of so many of those who feel responsible for putting this bunch of embarrassing incompetent zealots in power, at the cost of so many lives, so much taxpayer money, so much respect in the world, so much suffering. I actually think a number of people on SI have been driven kind of crazy by mortification and worry at what that gang has wrought, and designed for our future. I think they feel better, less like fools, while engaged in attacking any messengers that remind them of their folly and their man's. I think Ionescu reminds them of their folly, or makes them fear that maybe they were made fools of. Uncomfortable thought, that. What to do? Attack her personally instead of addressing her uncomfortable political or social point substantively! No matter how often ionesco asks them to engage on issues instead of in personal insult, there are people here who will feel bad when they engage with her on political issues (they seem so often to lose the argument) and feel better while they are attacking the messenger and high-fiving each other. So I take it back, about whom I'd ban. It's interesting to watch while ionescu wipes up the floor with ill-thought-out positions, and while their proponents predictably resort to rude personal insult because they have so little else to offer in the way of responsive rebuttal.