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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (210055)	12/7/2006 5:53:51 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Since I said earlier I don't actually take the whole "character" thing very seriously I don't recall you saying that. In your first post to me though you did rhetorically put down the character of a large class of people and contrast their characters to your own allegedly purer character. Now being embarrassed at that, it is a good idea to back away from the "character" thing. I remember almost nothing about you. You just aren't important enough for me to keep tabs on. Ha ha. Yes, I see religiously driven charity differently from you. I probably see it more like Ayn Rand would see it- as (somewhat) "virtuously" selfish. "I probably see it" - You don't know how you see it? BTW I think Rand would see ALL charity as selfish. For whatever that's worth. She was a very strange person. That's not a comment on you personally, it's a comment on an idea that you chose to personalize, and you made a general discussion (with regard to religiously driven charity) personal, about yourself. You misunderstand something. I don't consider myself one of the religious group Brooks depicted positively. I think they are better than I am. So it wouldn't be possible for me to personalize your putdown of the religious. I actually see everyone working in charity as selfish- myself included. But in your earlier post, you only chose to put down the charitable activities of others. You, of couse, didn't bother to work that out What, I should look up your unconscious attitudes in google or something? , and just decided that you had the Truth, and I was "targeting" the religious, and thinking I was "better". You did target the motivations of religious givers and portray yourself as purer. I'm glad the religious do what they do, although I do think there would probably be fewer problems in the world if people could be good without needing to be religious. Of course, if we were just angels to begin with the world would be a better place. But we're not. From your posts about me on SI, especially your posts in places where I do not post, That's surprising. I thought you said I wasn't "important enough for me to keep tabs on". I fully understand that you actually hate me. No, I don't hate you. Nor do I wish you dead as you charged a few months or so ago. I do understand you like to depict yourself as a victim of cruel haters though. Why you spend your time on me I will never understand. It's not that much time. But as to why some people make note of your posts in the first place, I'd say the primary reason is the arrogance and snobbishness you display. That is interesting and entertaining in a way. Also the fact that many of your posts are grouped in a tightly restricted thread where the 3 primary posters all have the same personality and manner - thats a draw too. It's a hoot. Like looking in on a bunch of rotten kids who've made themselves a little club. Why do people like Ugly Betty? It's the snobbish people at her job that get the laughs. I don't spend a lot of time talking about people I don't like. I often even regret the time I spend talking to them- so boring, such a waste of time. Well, I think one mostly posts to people on a board like this because one is interested in the particular subject, not because one "likes" or "dislikes" the persons. That focus on "liking" seems kind of adolescent.