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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (13666)	11/7/1998 4:29:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Substantive dialogue, jbe? K. gave me the "substantive dialogue" (more correctly, "substantive debate") lecture in his very first response to me, along with a stupid "Nazi" analogy. Fundamentally repugnant, indeed. Perhaps that has something to do with why I don't choose a less pugnacious approach with him. That, and the apparent "Decline of the West" / personal hatred of Clinton thing, which he harps on as much as anybody. Cheers Dan.

To: jbe who wrote (13666)	11/7/1998 8:10:00 AM
From: mrknowitall	Respond to of 67261

jbe - I'll respond to you here and discuss Mr. Schuh even though I dislike people posting about others as opposed to directing comments to third parties - something I find a bit strange as now I have to read all of Daniel's posts to find out what evil I am guilty of on any given day. Daniel's "style" is somewhat unique in that it has very little of "Daniel's" own thoughts. It is 90% cut-and-paste repetitiveness with snippets of whining attached. It challenges people, not ideas. It decries bullying but defends other bullies at the same time. Many weeks ago I pointed out to Daniel (to no avail) that if I were to say something like (not quoting or cutting or pasting, but the example is similar) "there are earthworms in the ground" he would respond with "Bush never got prosecuted for Iran/Contra." If I had posted "Birds eat the earthworms, therefore, earthworms are good for birds," he would have responded with "Starr is out of control." He has demonstrated that no matter what extremes of behavior the President engages in he will continue to support and defend him by diversionary attacks on others - anyone, anything, so long as he stands there and takes the whacking on behalf of his beloved boss. He is the James Carville of SI. And as of a recent post, we now know that he would support his boss even if he were guilty of criminal acts. So much for reasoned, rational, intellectually-based citizenship. I still don't find it depressing, even when he mentions me on other threads and says he's depressed about having to keep up the good fight. Again, this kind of thing is good mental exercise. To put ones OWN THOUGHTS about things into the written form is useful. Mr. K.

To: jbe who wrote (13666)	11/7/1998 6:01:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

(as distinct from debate, of the cheezy high-school variety that Dan decries). Really, jbe. Has Daniel Schuh ever posted anything except bitter name-calling posts? He has cynically referred to me as "good Christian Dwight", at least 50 times or more. All because I don't believe in excusing lying under oath, if its in a private sexual harassment trial. Whereas others here see sexual harassment as an issue which is proper to lie about. See Michelle about that. She specifically agreed that is how she views sexual harassment. Clinton is her hero because he "did the right thing", and lied under oath to deny charges of sexual harassment. But of course, she also is a Democrat.