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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (22524)	5/29/1998 9:20:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

>So I think what I am doing is taking your posts as a starting point and then expressing my views, but you see me as deliberately misquoting you. < What I see as happening is that I'll say something. Then you see that if I say A, then B follows. You end up discussing B. I'll bet a lot of our troubles stem from the fact that we aren't using a common logic to arrive at "if A, then B". So it strikes me as unfair when you assume "if A, then B" and go on as if it were agreed. Because often, I'm looking at my screen and thinking "huh? I didn't ******* say that!" I ask you, if you really want to discuss something serious with me, please restrict yourself to what I really said. Don't draw conclusions from my ideas and then move on as if those conclusions were validated or peremptorily agreed upon. Using such conclusions as the basis for discourse is imho a breach of protocol. I don't like it. I'm almost tempted to point out taht "A is A", but I fear that I may be misunderstood by some of our resident honeyBs! I'll give you an example. I think that a teenager shooting another - in school, or not - is a violent crime. From this you take a step and deduce that a teenager carrying a gun - to school, or not - is a violent crime. Debatable. Suddenly we have two different cases. You go further - "if A, then B" - and posit that I said that a child picking up a gun (and here I have a mental picture of a kid in Daddy's closet) is a violent criminal act. Waitaseckint! Seamlessly I've been transformed from talking about schoolroom homicide to a kid picking up a gun. Do you see how I have been maneuvered into a rational corner, how I'm suddenly portrayed as saying something extreme? Can you blame me if I get a little hot under the saddle for being put into the position of pointing out that "I didn't say that!!!"? >As far as my saying you advocate having almost everyone armed, almost everyone will be unless there are seriously enforced laws to the contrary. < Imo this is another shining example of "if A, then B". And on this we disagree. Do YOU feel compelled to be armed? I don't think so. Does this mean that you don't belong to the near-universal class of "almost everybody"? I'll bet that less than half of our regular posters here have a gun. The one subpoint on which you might getme to agree is the but about "seriously enforced laws to the contrary". We have a comprehensive body of laws regarding the ownership and disposition of firearms. Are they being seriously enforced? Obviously not! Otherwise we would have less kids with guns on'em. Ok, I'm all typed out