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: TimF who wrote (89479)	10/10/2008 1:39:01 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542010

I'm not saying that Smiley's statement was as offensive as that statement Well, I had to go back and read the article. I haven't been reading most of the pots and kettles discussion that has been consuming the thread and, having have been full up on Viet Nam for at least a couple of decades, I automatically passed on a post where that name popped out. Having read the piece now, though, I must say that I can't even identify which statement you have in mind as being so shocking. Her point of view on Viet Nam and on war, in general, is hardly novel. I haven't heard anyone express it in a long time, but it's not new news. So I'm having trouble identifying what is so shocking. Maybe you were mostly startled to see it pop up again in the context of Ayers vs McCain. As usual, I have difficulty "getting" what has the Great Umbrage Machine cranked up. Generally I wouldn't automatically assume that someone shared the opinion of someone they quoted, however if someone posts something really offensive without comment (or worse yet with positive or supporting comments), it really strikes the wrong cord. I recognize that it hit a hot button. However, I don't see any "ergo" between a strike to one's hot button and attribution of the content to the poster. I don't think you can rationalize it, at least not that way.