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 : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (14359)	11/19/1998 11:16:00 PM
From: JF Quinnelly	Respond to of 71178

I worry less about the paranoid right because I find them odder. Examining endless exposes of the Fed, flouridated water, the Trilateral Commission, black helicopters, UN perfidy, the crash of Flight 805 keeps them busy and out of trouble. They are usually as easy to spot as UFO buffs. The paranoid left annoys me more because, unlike the paranoid right, these kooks often have money and influence. An Oliver Stone is producing mainstream movies, not just grinding out photocopied broadsides against the Bilderbergers. Democrat strategy mainstreams left-paranoia in their campaigns, claiming Republicans want to poison the water, starve old people and children. They probably actually believe it. I shouldn't underestimate the prevalence of lunacy.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (14359)	11/20/1998 6:22:00 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 71178

I wonder why you seem to find the paranoia of the left so much odder than the equal and opposite paranoia of the right? They seem to me to complement each other perfectly. Thank you thank you thank you. Freddy and I just had a fight about this. I say that extremism breeds an opposite extremism. (Witness Feelings--this same thread discussion has occurred innumerable times over the past 2 1/2 years with varying levels of intellectual ability, although this current one I think is the best I've read yet) He says I'm a wimp, also that the far right has less power than the far left and so isn't as terrible or something. Well, I am not wimpy about something I heard last night on CNN or CNBC following the Starr hearing. (I had thought he was remarkable. Having read only the media's evil depictions, I was surprised to find him rational, dignified, polite, and most impressively articulate--and GREAT vocabulary!) The station had on some young female New York Times reporter who smugly and sneeringly made the statement that Starr was bland, had no personality, no charisma, no sense of humor. I didn't think that was true, first of all, but excuse me!!!! This was not The Ken Starr Comedy Hour! She then said he didn't let us see the real him. Why should he? This isn't about him! He was the perfect witness. He owed us nothing of the private Starr! And I thought actually that he was slightly uncomfortable with that final defense of himself. And then--and this is where I totally lost it- she said, "He didn't put any spin on his story. C'mon, this is the 90's. EVerybody has a spin! You have to have a spin." She said this! She really did! Is that scary or what? The man is castrated for keeping personal politics and himself out of the facts? And the interviewer is nodding and agreeing as if that made any sense at all? Personality! Charisma! Spin! Entertain us! Charm us! Make us feel good! (Or maybe feel our pain?) Is that stunning or what? I'm still amazed. Give me bland.