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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (1188)	9/18/2006 10:21:06 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 10087

I had to do a double take on Thames' post because on first reading, it wasn't clear to me what he was pointing a finger at. On second reading it appears he was being vague on the who but not the what and not necessarily singling Laz out but definitely provoking Laz over this issue. Provocation is allowed as long as it is over an issue and not a character attack on the other poster. Laz complained to me and on another thread that he thought Thames was calling him a homophobic homosexual. So, I tried to get clear on the logic. It appears Thames was wondering out loud if Americans like us aren't some sort of latent hidden Fascists that see Fascism in all our enemies and hate them for what we have hidden deep in our subconscious. He does say 'You' but the subject was a comparison with how American's deal with violent Muslims compared to Brits. There should be no question that America isn't a fascist state. I don't believe that was the allegation. I suppose there could be some group in America or anywhere that thinks like that, but Thames seemed to be suggesting it was the prominent view of some group but I am not clear on what group or why he thinks Laz should answer for some speculative group. I don't believe Laz is a fascist in any way. The way Thames worded the comment, was more of a suspicion than an allegation. It doesn't even make it to the level of insinuation. However, there are lots of ways to continue that conversation without ending with a 'GFY'. We can ask Thames to be specific on who 'YOU' is. We may find that he was just exploring the idea and doesn't have anyone specific in mind. If he can be specific, we can ask for evidence supporting his concern. People can simply tell him, we don't know of any such groups or individuals so the issue is meaningless to us at this point. I think we can answer his query with dignity and authority, but I was not in the mood to do that today, and by agreeing with Las's response, I didn't rise to the level of discourse I require from others. So, I banned myself as well. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe not. Maybe the idea for this type of thread is never going to work. btw you're not supposed to post to me while I'm banned. I unbanned myself so I could respond. I think I'll unban Laz now to. Bottom line is that the question on Thames' behavior falls into a grey area of uncertainty regarding whether or not he was making wild unsuported allegations about Laz or whether he was just promoting a supposition that he may or may not have closure on himself. Take care, gem