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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Zulu-tek, Inc. (ZULU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aleta who wrote (14281)	9/22/1998 12:57:00 AM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 18444

Aleta, get your definitions straight before you begin accusing people. That's twice you've done that to me. Understand? Twice! That was quoted material. The Webmistress came to a reasonable conclusion once she realized the error you put her in. And I'm sure you were so charming in how you presented it to her, she just immediately concluded that I'm one of those foul-mouthed Yahoo posters. You are that smooth, aren't you? You ended up making SI look bad, given the backdrop of Clinton's debacle all over the tv today. Since when is the "National Industry Standard: The Network" below a literary standard suitable for adult discussion? Needless to say, you disappoint me.

To: aleta who wrote (14281)	9/22/1998 1:00:00 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

Aleta, repost the entire page. Let others be the judge!

To: aleta who wrote (14281)	9/22/1998 4:43:00 AM
From: wlcnyc	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18444

Aleta, I have to "side" with Party on this one. I have to admit that the thought did go through my mind that you may have been the one to report him. Then I ruled it out because I did not think that you would do that, no matter what you might think of him. It never even occurred to me that you could take the post as an attack on you personally. I didn't even realize that it had been posted "to you." let alone directed "at you." I did not see it as anything but what Party has said - a reference to a quote from the article that was posted. This reminds me of another recent incident which caused misunderstanding between the two of you. I haven't commented on it before because I didn't want to stir up trouble all over again. It concerns his use of the word "cracker." Up until about a month ago I had always thought that calling someone a "cracker" meant they were a hick, naive, or unsophisticated, and that it was all quite harmless. Then New York City's Mayor, Rudolph Guilliani, was called a cracker by the "person" who was organizing the "Black Youth Movement for Freedom" in Harlem. I was somewhat taken aback when the New York Daily News reported this incident and explained that the word "cracker" means the opposite of the "N" word. I never had any clue before as to this definition of the word. Maybe I am the hick, naive, or unsophisticated one! So, when Party called you a cracker a couple of weeks ago, I was a somewhat stunned and puzzled. So much so, that I finally looked the word up in several dictionaries and found there were many, many different definitions of the word - from the completely harmless to the highly derogatory (as it had been defined by the New York Daily News). Not being from New York originally, I thought maybe it was a regional "thing" so I took a small poll among co-workers and friends. I found, once again, that there were many different understandings as to the meaning and intent of the word, every bit as varied as the dictionaries. When PT explained what he meant by the word, I decided that maybe he meant "crackers" as in "you're crackers." Not only was this an expression I was familiar with, but it was also one that I found in a dictionary which, more or less, means "flaky." Then last Monday morning I was reading the New York Daily News and came across the (pre)review of that night's telecast of the Ally MacBeal television show (which is a critically acclaimed series that I watched more often in the days before I became addicted to these threads and the "dramas" herein). The review contains a direct quote that night's episode. Lo and Behold, that quote is the same expression that PT had used - "You're a cracker" - meant to convey somewhat the same meaning that PT had said he meant. I realize that this usage of the word does not make it "right" but it does at least confirm PT's intention. The following is an excerpt from that review: "....The episode - written by Kelley and directed by Jonathan Fontell - is quintessential "Ally" and then some. It opens with clips from last season reminding us of Ally's emotional fragility - "You're cracker," her therapist (Tracey Ullman) tells her bluntly - as well as the show's reliance on physical as well as verbal shtick: People fall down, throw things and get hit by stuff a lot on this show....." The above is "cut and pasted" from the following link: mostnewyork.com After reading that and seeing the episode that night, I realized that PT had truly meant the term in a relatively harmless way, and certainly not in the way you (and perhaps others) may have taken it. I don't know how such misunderstandings can be prevented, but I honestly feel that PT has more intelligence and integrity than to resort to "serious name calling." Playful, yes, but not the way you took it. You, yourself, admitted that it could be used in a harmless way, even within your definition. All that aside, I honestly did not even consider that there could be any misunderstanding concerning this latest post in question! I am sorry that you read something into it, that I (and probably others) did not find. If we can't "all just get along" I would hope that there would be a little more understanding and tolerance and less paranoia among this group. Frankly, had I considered a post from anyone an insult to me personally, I don't "think" that I would even ask to have it removed. I would leave it to allow others to judge the poster based on her/his postings! All this of course, FWIW JMHO and NOT ROTFLO! Bill