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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (538291)	12/23/2009 8:57:32 AM
From: one_less	2 Recommendations Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1577883

"The words skank, madam, conventional prostitute, concierge, madam were being thrown about in an attempt to judge the proper level or category. I believe you judged someone to fall under more of a concierge status than one of the others ... " Those words were used. They were even included in my post, but that is because others were using them. I did not refer to anyone by those labels except for 'concierge'. Which I wasn't aware was a moral judgment..." The perception you have of your own character is flawed to say the least. The point has already been covered too many times and your perspective has been addressed. ... you got the conversation between Tenchu and I wrong. ....You did get around to admitting you got something wrong. CJ, I've never had difficulty admitting my mistakes. It's what normal people do CJ. Ten corrected my mistake and I didn't argue about it, no need to, he was obviously right. I saw no need to post retractions or anything. I don't know what your point is is proclaiming that I've finally admitted to a mistake. Not arguing when someone corrects your mistake is enough for most people. Apparently you think you need notification or something. It might have been different if I'd started accusing Ten of not knowing what he'd posted or why or what it meant or something and and trying to claim there had been no mistake in my post, then calling him names and such. That would have been CJ behavior. It was no reflection on my character. There was a stream of similar posts loosely connected and I picked one that could have been but was not connected to one of his particular stream of posts. A simple mistake and no big deal. Just recognize he is correct and move on. I know, you are incapable of that...several of us see that you are incapable of that. So when you post some goof up, we know what to expect. Call you on it and watch as you will spin and well do this...which you now seem to have adapted into your own rhetoric of projections. "You make stuff up, you distort. You use weasel words. All to avoid actually addressing the issue. None of these behaviors are indicative of someone with any character at all. You are a narrow minded, vindictive little man with probably nothing in your life you can call your own. So you try to tear down others here." We try to clue you in to how silly you are acting and instead of correcting your mistake you go into a tail spin of tantruming projection ... an oft repeated scenario here and everyone is familiar with the patterns of your weak character.

To: combjelly who wrote (538291)	12/23/2009 9:24:03 AM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577883

I took offense because I wasn't being judgmental. You, however, were. This is what we call 'projection'. Your mistake, and a typical CJ goof up. When you are uncomfortable you attack and project onto others. I have never taken offense to being called judgmental. There may be times when people misapply the term but that is a separate issue. You objected to the characterisation but the whole discussion between you three (bentway, tejek, and yourself) was nothing if it wasn't judgemental. So you've gone into days now of attacking me with every kind of vitriolic slam for simply pointing out the obvious. Character counts with me. I have paid close attention to which posters are accountable on character and which are merely tools of some dogmatic idealism or some partisanism. I pay attention to which posters should be taken serious when they are taking a position on principle and which are simply employing high school debate gambits out of misplaced loyalty to the ideological dogma they serve. There are left wingers, even extremists on SI who I know are very serious about their principles and I have complete respect for their views, even when I take an opposing view. Same with right wingers and even some extreme right wingers. I can't think of a left winger on this thread who qualifies but there are some on other threads. I consider myself a good judge of character, and I recognize some people are masking their true character on these political discussion threads. Over a long period of time, however, those masks become transparent. I have made mistakes in that area but usually in giving someone more credit than they deserve. Conduct is much easier to judge. Miscreant, cruel, brutal, spiteful, behavior I judge as bad,... kindness, consideration, generosity, caring, etc, I judge as good. So go ahead, call me judgemental.