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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (12130)	2/15/2006 1:53:43 PM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 541604

OK, as promised we are now four posters lighter, two on the left and two on the right. The criteria were my own, choosing individuals with a confrontational, absolutely exclusionary bias when it comes to partisanship. I hope I have pleased and offended everyone in equal measure. That was my goal. A few others almost made the cut. All I can say is that the first partisan hand grenade you lob at anyone will be your last here. The response will be swift, silent and totally arbitrary on my part. So let's focus on the politicians and the issues and leave the group condemnation and attacks on other posters out of it. My thanks to everyone else who has made this thread a successful, lively forum.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (12130)	2/15/2006 1:57:40 PM
From: Rambi	Respond to of 541604

think it's a legitimate question to raise but the article did so in a gratuitously partisan manner Bless you, bless you. That really was all I was I was trying to say, and have NO idea how I wound up saying so much more. Ele kindly says it's because I can't help defending anyone I see being attacked, even if I don't like them. Then I am upset when people see me as part of the Other.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (12130)	2/15/2006 4:03:00 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541604

but the article did so in a gratuitously partisan manner. I think that's the problem. I've been reading along and have had in my mind that someone accused Cheney of being drunk, which IMO is way over the top. So I just went back and read the piece again and found no such assertion, only questions, which I think are legitimate to wonder about. So why did Rambi respond as she did and why did I have the impression that the article was out there? I think the "gratuitously partisan" tone of the piece, the speculation framed in a way that they came across as a wink-wink assertion, and the tone of the accompanying comments from Scott which had a conspiratorial edge to them. One can raise questions about the reasons for the delay in meeting with the police, even speculate about alcohol, without it coming across as an accusation. An accusation was what I read into it, aptly or not.