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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (22447)	9/4/2005 5:23:26 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

"Mine was not an expression of anger at anyone on SI" Insofar as many people on SI are allies of this man, Bush--you can be sure that many on SI feel otherwise. The fact that you did not name names (they are usually aliases anyways) is irrelevant to what you expressed and to the fact that you were heard. "I can't stand Bush"..."Bush sucks in every conceivable way, about everything I care about." I don't take any difference between that and actually addending the alias of someone you don't know and who is directly receiving your post. I say that last statement with regard to how I understand (or misunderstand) your position with regard to whether people using an alias can suffer emotional distress from the words of another person using an alias. My previous understanding (or misunderstanding) was that people using an alias could not claim to be harmed by various varieties of verbal abuse. Sometimes I simply misunderstand what people mean (even over hundreds of posts)--and sometimes people are intentionally obscure or evasive. "Going after people, on the other hand, is just wrong (and illogical), in my book." How about "going after" an alias by condemning their ideas? An "alias" is not a real person (unless I am misunderstanding hundreds of posts). So if you insult or denigrate someones hero (let us say, George Bush)...is there a moral difference (leaving aside needless nit-picking about what "moral" means) between the fact that the recipients of such an insult (in a public coffee shop for members only where scores or hundreds of people stop by for coffee and chat) are named--or whether they are not named? Even if they are named they are usually only named by their nick name? I am going out for a barbeque, some wine, some drinks...and a CFL labor day classic football game. I hope to be back later. To clarify what my position was (because who needs misunderstanding)--I think that how one expresses anger personally in work and social environments should be thoughtfully considered as to consequences of self interest. However (as these BB's allow controversial subjects to be addressed for the betterment and the progress of humanity)--I encourage people to vent their anger if it is helpful to their goals of preserving their values. Perhaps you take umbrage with aliases having spirited debates (which may involve mockery, sarcasm, insults and genuine opinion)--but I am not sure. I DO think that circumstances allow people to express their feelings and values more honestly on a BB than at their work. But if they do not take advantage of this fact they may just as well be kissing ass at their workplace and letting the world go to Hell in a hand basket because it is safer to be phoney than to be sincere and to point out what is wrong in the world (in their opinion, of course). Now, of course, we are banning people for defending their beliefs here, as well as firing them at their workplace--so perhaps free expression is to be doomed by people of prejudice everywhere? It could well be a failure in my understanding rather than a failure in your communication--but I do find some of your posts rather confusing. I hope you won't insult me for that observation because I am using an alias so am quite vulnerable to anyone "going after" me. Take care.