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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (56501)	3/26/2007 3:58:08 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 90947

"Firstly, I never mentioned your name in my post that you retrieved from another thread. You were anonymous.. I do not mention names as I do not ever want to denigrate,poke fun at nor minimize what someone thinks, believes or posts. So, please tell me where.. specificity as that is what you like...where I denigrated anyone.. Name them and what I said.. and where I used their names.." Sorry, Suma, but you've been hanging with X for too long - you're sounding just like her here. It is disingenuous, at best, to say that you are not denigrating someone simply because you only alluded to them and did not name them directly. The obvious intent is to denigrate, but to leave yourself the plausible deniability of I didn't name you - I could've been referring to anyone. Then when called on it, your defense is to complain that you are being "baited" and that it "impinges [sic] on [your] integrity." That's just plain dishonest. "I would ask you the question. Do you truly think that Bush has never lied?" Another disingenuous argument. To challenge your vague claim that "Bush lied", one must defend the position that "Bush has never lied"? Bull crap, Suma. You can't defend your unsubstantiated assertion by demanding that your challenger prove its negative.

To: Suma who wrote (56501)	3/27/2007 12:00:28 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Hi Suma, please allow me to set the facts straight. Rather than do it in one long post, I'll respond to each issue one at a time in separate posts so that each issue can be properly addressed in a coherent manner. In this instance it will be two as there are two issues covered in one short sentence. << "You have baited me and this post, although not to be, impinges on my integrity." >> I must disagree that I baited you. I asked you a legitimate question based on assertions I know to be false. If you disagree, all that was necessary would be for you to accurately respond to my question as stated in the link below: Message 23397295 As for your assertion that I impinged your integrity, if it does, it does so only because of what you falsely asserted about me. You said that I'm an "extreme right wing die hard" & when it comes to me there "is no open argument for those who glean all their information from right wing sources and take them literally including Michele Milkin or whomever who is so right wing her eyes cross to the right...". Anyone who knows me well could not honestly or accurately make those assertions about me. My posting history on SI stands in stark contrast to your unsupportable opinion. What actually happened is that you impinged my integrity by making false assertions about me. If your integrity was impinged, it was you who caused it to happen. Message 23397723

To: Suma who wrote (56501)	3/27/2007 4:12:19 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

<< "Firstly, I never mentioned your name in my post that you retrieved from another thread. You were anonymous.. I do not mention names as I do not ever want to denigrate,poke fun at nor minimize what someone thinks, believes or posts. So, please tell me where.. specificity as that is what you like...where I denigrated anyone.. Name them and what I said.. and where I used their names.." >> Oeconomicus more than adequately responded to you about this. The fact is that I was the only person on SI who posted to you precisely as you described in your post, so I was not anonymous at all. And as Oeconomicus said: "It is disingenuous.... to say that you are not denigrating someone simply because you only alluded to them... The obvious intent is to denigrate, but to leave yourself the plausible deniability... when called on it, your defense is to complain that you are being "baited" and that it "impinges [sic] on [your] integrity." That's just plain dishonest." http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=23402488 And that is not the only time you have "denigrated, poke[d] fun at nor minimize[d] what someone thinks, believes or posts". You may not see it as such, but your own words irrefutably contradict your opinion about yourself. Message 22854826 Message 23086349 Message 23397723 Message 20326838 Message 22064892 Message 20967960 Message 21496568 Message 22452813 Message 22993442 Message 22547353 Message 23258672 Message 22529661 Message 20976095 Message 21095989 Message 23257179 Message 22500576 Message 22335144 Message 21496464 Message 21228943 Message 21228957 Message 21232342 Message 21115443 Message 21229868 Message 21020600 Message 23357103 Message 21789637 Message 23337516 Message 22069953 Message 22397508 Message 22108907 Message 23344458 Message 21551861 Message 22180943 Message 21096198 Message 23305415 Message 22942967 Message 23113667 Message 23258672 Message 22939042 Message 22909839 Message 22880436 Message 22548940 Message 23260725 Message 23148677 Message 23355669 Message 23346182 Message 23204676 Message 23250371 Message 23262108 Message 23210710 Message 23210619 Message 23336890 Message 23118142 Message 23041961 Message 21273908 Message 23031966 Message 22999573 Message 23150395 Message 22873737 Message 22985829 Message 23374286 Message 22881773 Message 22343263 Message 23392190 Message 23228867 Message 21233665 Message 23220520 Message 23219175 Message 23210720 Message 23148710 Message 23069938 Message 23150143 Message 23138360 Message 21213946

To: Suma who wrote (56501)	3/27/2007 6:46:06 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Suma, I've decided for the time being not to continue refuting the remaining assertions of yours which I strenuously disagree with. IMO, at this point it may appear I am piling on. Bottom line IMO, we differ in two key areas. You rely almost exclusively on your opinions & the opinions of others. Too often you confuse opinions with fact. Just because someone says something that appeals to your political beliefs does not make them factual or accurate. I can consistently support my opinions with credible, independently verifiable evidence which I freely share. I use the opinions of others only when I am reasonably sure they are backed by credible evidence. When you are challenged to support your assertions you (like when I asked you to quote some Bush Admin lies on matters of substance), like all too many liberals, will not directly respond or provide credible support for the assertions. Yet even when confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you will adamantly cling to the now thoroughly discredited memes. When my assertions are challenged, I gladly provide credible evidence to support them. I also allow my POV to change as time & events unfold rather than cling to opinions that no longer are supported by the facts. Our posting histories provide substantial evidence to support what I've stated.