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.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (12563)	7/25/2005 4:25:17 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35834

Ken, hear me out on this. I want all discussions on this thread to be as reality based as possible. That's why I force discussions to consistently limit their assertions & opinions to issues that can be supported with credible, independently verifiable evidence. I want a higher standard across the board here. I'd rather there be a scant few reality based discussions than hundreds of baseless partisan diatribes loaded with wild speculation, misinformation, lies, deceit & distortion. Quality trumps quantity big time IMO. RE: Plame - "What she is NOW is a filthy criminal" Plame hasn't been charged with anything. Even you said it wasn't likely she'd be charged with anything. And as much as you might make a strong case that some law might have been broken, that's not what you said. Instead, you to made assertions (some stated as fact) that lack sufficient evidence at this point in time. IMO, your emotions got in the way & you made an assertion that isn't settled fact. That immediately opens the door to partisan sniping & legitimate complaints of biased, unfair treatment If I let stuff like that stand. And what does that do to a thread with it's main purpose of exposing extreme bias & reality defying opinions? If I allow you to go there, then I'm a hypocrite because I don't let others cross that line. This thread my credibility legitimately suffers if I don't apply standards consistently. My problem here is with stating as fact something that clearly is not a fact. What Plame did was reprehensible. She placed partisan politics above national security on a critical matter while we are at war. So why not keep your remarks in that realm? Most folks can deduce that such behavior might be a criminal act for a CIA agent under those circumstances. That way you still get your point across. For those who can't or won't match or exceed your level of credible, reality based discourse, put their emotions & rhetoric in check, then their POV's suffer by comparison.