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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HPilot who wrote (8487)	8/20/2009 4:33:19 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Your dishonesty was copying only part of a sentence. I didn't copy only part of a sentence. I copied up to where you had a comma that should have been a period given that you had two clauses with no connector. That's not dishonest. I simply overlooked what I took to be a typo, a comma instead of a period. However, I can understand how you would make such an error. If you can see how I could have "made such an error," then you can see that it wasn't dishonest. It was an reasonable, good-faith interpretation of what was in front of me. People who make reasonable albeit incorrect interpretations are not dishonest. Dishonesty requires intent to misconstrue. There was no such intent. I thought it was pretty clear it was in error when posting the entire sentence. I am taking a pass on that sentence because I do not know what it means. I do not have a clue re the intended antecedent of the second "it." Nor do I know which poster posted the entire sentence in which post. So I can't derive what it was you thought was "pretty clear." I have learned from this exchange that trying to interpret around unclear language is not likely to perceived as helpful or even neutral so I will refrain. If by omitting the second sentence from my response I have somehow distorted your intent, I apologize in advance.