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: peter michaelson who wrote (26039)	11/19/1998 11:01:00 AM
From: Sam Ferguson	Respond to of 108807

your point was missed. Seems nicks just confuse and cause more problems is not misunderstood.

To: peter michaelson who wrote (26039)	11/19/1998 7:02:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I have to say that I thought your post was not only very very funny, but made a genuine point of some importance. We are brought up witnessing, and then of course internalizing, the reflexive, almost hushed awe with which people are conditioned to speak the names of these figures. It is in the great interest of those who identify with the particular religion, and its Main Figure, to adopt and promulgate a mesmerized, reverent stance toward their deity. It is against their interest to be permissive about clear heads and eyes bringing the same tools to the task of discussing their Figure as they would to discussing and thinking about anything else that was commended to their attention. Personally, I capitalize the word "God" out of respect for the reverential feelings for believers in this concept; but I think I'd be telling the truth if I said that most every time I do, I think to myself, "Why, again, is it that I have to pay obeisance to this notion?" This attitude of the membership of the various religious factions, which is "political" in a real sense, and makes little children's minds tend toward the credulousness and awe institutional interests want them to feel instead of toward the rationality and common sense that just might be brought to bear on those same institutional interests, (and does the same to adult minds, too; but the latter seems less dreadful to me, because an adult who chooses that path must need it; children are conditioned, made, to need it, it seems to me)... ...wait a minute, I got off the track. I was going to say that the idea Peter proposes in his funny post has depth, in that it shows how much is in a name, and how different we would feel in our discussions if we did use different syllables in our references than the long-established, "predisposing" ones. As peter said, people have long-established feelings for the old names, which cause them to believe many claims they would LOL at if, instead of the claim being made in behalf of Jesus and Buddha, for example, they were made for Chuck and Debbie. [In my Edit window: I just reread this post, and I think it is a complicated post about a simple concept, and I apologize to all.]

To: peter michaelson who wrote (26039)	11/23/1998 7:45:00 AM
From: Hubert Few	Respond to of 108807

Peter, since I may have helped fuel the combustion of unlike religious beliefs, I just wanted to say that I agree totally (not that it matters) with the proposition of renaming certain larger than life mortals. You forgot one though....it's already been established in another thread that the Pope's name is Bubba, lives in Alabama, and drives an enormous 4-wheel drive truck. I can play some hot Sitar licks, while burning wormwood incense if you like....anything to loosen the binding ties of convention! I should point out though that outrageousness for the sake of outrageousness creates it's own traps of convention. Once the confines of the prison have been accurately mapped, it is tempting to utter such religious chants as "Fck, why did that not occur to me before now?????" shedding one's clothes, skipping merrily through the threads in existentialist glee. I am here to tell you, there is one naming convention that must be followed, phonetically speaking, Phuck is much less offensive for some reason, even though it sounds EXACTLY the same! Go figure, one of those flukes (or is it phlukes) of English that is more palatable. Impristine can be looked to for guidelines in matters of "good taste". I have no taste whatsoever, and only bend my total disregard for rules to keep my grandfathered (free!) status on SI. I wouldn't pay $100 to get laid, much less contribute here or anywhere else when I* am the one who should be paid!