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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (214530)	8/4/2007 7:19:23 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794024

But it took a lot of posts to get you to say it. Your dancing here is what gets annoying. I'm so glad you said that. What a wonderful segue you gave me. I knew that was where you were going. Yes, of course that's what I was wondering. But I wouldn't have "gone" anywhere with it if you hadn't staged your little diversion. But it took a lot of posts to get you to say it. You keep blaming the number of posts on me. This colloquy is a perfect example of why they go on so long. You're pointing your finger in the wrong direction. I started out wondering what you assumed I was wondering. So I posted just that--that I was wondering why the article mentioned CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC but not Fox. Short post. Pretty straight forward. And how did you respond? You took me down some garden path about how Fox isn't an over-the-air network, as though that had anything to do with why the five other networks were included but Fox was excluded. Intentional diversion? Careless reading? Senior moment? Why would you do that? Maybe because you secretly love these wastes of time. I don't know. And I'll bet that you're not going to tell me because you never do. So, here we are. We've had more than a dozen posts already on this subject. What was your objective in extending the transaction? Just to get me to say that I suspected something iffy? Well, of course I did. So if you wanted me to be more explicit, you could have just asked me rather than feinting with that bogus three-over-the-air-networks gimmick. Or your could have just offered an on-point response to my original post. The easiest way to avoid long transactions is to give a direct response or no response. Your dancing here is what gets annoying. And frustrating. As for taking a long time to say something, talk about pots and kettles. You still seemingly haven't recognized the OBVIOUS FACT that only five of the six networks were mentioned in the article and that Fox was missing. And I bet that you can't bring yourself to do it. Your diversions and non sequiturs and abrupt shut-downs are pretty annoying, too. I'm trying not to respond to red herrings like this one but sometimes my habit kicks in before I remember I'm trying to break it. <g>