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.

Biotech / Medical : Ligand (LGND) Breakout! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael meyers who wrote (18659)	4/5/1998 1:15:00 PM
From: celeryroot.com	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

I do not consider Bernie's posts negative toward women !!!!!! I also received a pm from NAH which I do not appreciate.

To: michael meyers who wrote (18659)	4/5/1998 2:25:00 PM
From: John O'Neill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

Michael...in defense of the women on this thread, let me say that NAH sent me a personal message which gave me the impression that she is a good sport with a sense of humor. I haven't been a member of SI long enough to know the history of dialogue. I do know, however, that I have made several VERY offensive remarks directed at Paula Jones during the last few months & maybe inadvertently added fuel to the fire.. The Jones case may have polarized thinking for many others lately as well. As those who saw any of my posts know, to me she epitomizes the lowest level of thinking in the "world's second oldest profession" while simultaneously causing a negative impact on USA. Quite a one girl show !! The Jones mentality, no doubt, represents only a very small minority of women in our country...still it's easy to see how men might be sarcasstic to the issue of sexual harassment at this time. JO society.

To: michael meyers who wrote (18659)	4/6/1998 2:47:00 AM
From: Flagrante Delictu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32384

Michael, OFF TOPIC >>I stand by my accusation that your posts are generally negative towards women << It is not necessary to lacerate yourself in such a manner as to cause self-inflicted wounds. It is clear to the threadsters that you have made no previous claim here that my" posts are generally negative towards women." But we will be happy to have you quote the reference on this thread that you stand by. Kindly show proof that you have previously stated on this thread that my" posts are generally negative towards women." The threadsters are familiar with your post # 18622 on Sunday, Apr. 4, at 11:43 PM ET in which you clearly stated that I "make fun of women all the time." It wouldn't aid your credibility to pretend in this current post that what you said on Apr 4 was that my posts" were generally negative towards women". Our threadsters would spot the attempted weaseling out of what you did say by pretending "to stand on " what you haven't said. So, kindly provide the link to your purported statement on the LGND thread that what I post"is generally negative towards women". >> However, I'm not going to get in to a debate about this << If we didn't know that you claim to have a B.S. & an M.B. A. from the U. of Chicago, we might be inclined to suspect another weasely dodge.in the above captioned statement. We might think that you were attempting to dodge your responsibility to prove your patently false allegation pf Apr. 4 by showing your disdain for debate. Debate is not what decency requires you to do here, Providing proof of your allegations is not debate. Don't think we will fall for that hoary old chestnut. >> It would be pointless since I doubt if you would recognize your negative tone towards women << Please! The reason you attempt to use to weasel out of your obligation to support your allegation is "I doubt if you would recognize your negative tone towards women"? In other words, I don't deserve to see the proof of your allegation because I couldn't understand it. That is a contemptible argument. Do you really think we'll fall for that kind of illogic? You choose to dissemble rather than retract your false allegation. << I would ask you to do a poll of the women on this thread, >> You will apologize to me if the women do not "consider my posts on this thread negative toward women." << You have twice made unsubstantiated allegations against me, that my posts make fun of women all the time (Apr 4), and the new allegation that you"stand on" that my posts are "generally negative toward women". Neither of those unsubstantiated allegations are worthy of substantiation by you or apology from you, in your opinion. But the results of a poll answering a different question than was raised in either of the aforementioned questions is to be your basis on which to apologize for the baseless falsity of both of your allegations. Who do you think you're kidding? You have revealed what kind of a person you are to us. And to think you had the effrontery to previously complain about our conduct of this thread. Your shameless behavior befouls us all. The question at hand is whether you are allowed to make unsubstantiated allegations & then refuse to provide substantiation. If you want to run a poll on the question you propose, please do. But, whatever result you receive on the poll does not absolve you from the responsibility to fairly support your allegations.Even if the answer you drive leads you to think you are correct, it would be an ex post facto answer & unusable in supporting your prior allegation.