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: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (50395)	5/29/1999 7:23:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

It took two hours to slog through the posts for today. Mighty interesting happenings. Now for my overall analysis: Daniel repeatedly and ostentatiously posted simply to insult others. In my (admittedly short) time here, I've butted heads with a few people (including Michelle and Pezz). While things have gotten heated, we have always been able to pull back from the edge and restore some amount of civility to our posts. (And I recognize that after tonight I might have to do it again with both of them, but...) But the only person here who flatly refused to be civil no matter how many times he was approached was Daniel. It reached the point that he proclaimed the destruction of any "substantive debate" here to be his only goal. He was deliberately crass and off-topic and disruptive in his attempt to do so. For his repeated violations he was suspended. Apparently this is not uncommon as at least Michelle and Johannes were as well at some point. However, when he was suspended, Daniel chose to further flout the rules by registering under what was not only another name (a violation by itself), but a name that was clearly intended to be a doppelganger of another poster here. This was the reason he was booted. No matter what Pezz or Michelle would wish to be true, the simple fact is that Daniel screwed up with the "neocom" stunt. If he had been permanently booted simply for being abusive and antagonistic then the defense of him might be legitimate, but he wasn't. He was booted for attempting to sidestep the suspension that had been imposed on him. Of course, the fact that he (apparently) came back on today, at least long enough to write one post, is just another nail in his SI coffin. It's sort of pathetic too. Really Daniel, if being on these threads has caused you so much pain that you feel the need to simply lash out at people, then maybe you should find another hobby. Or if you really need to post, try going somewhere else. Virtually every portal site has political discussion boards. I've spent a fair amount of time on other boards, especially when you were "flooding the fetid forum." Most of them are far more rollicking places than SI (which is downright genteel by comparison) so you should feel right at home. Pezz, your depiction of Daniel as a victim is disingenuous at best. Really the only claim that you can make is that maybe JLA and Bill should have been suspended too, but that in no way changes the basic facts. Daniel was only suspended for being disruptive, he was permanently booted for fraudulently creating a second account. The entire notion that he was in any way justified in his actions because he felt victimized is ridiculous if not dangerous. I'm sure that the Columbine High Trenchcoat Mafia shooters felt victimized too, does that justify their actions? (See, right here, I'm relieved that Daniel isn't here, since one of his favorite tactics was to portray an analogy as a metaphor. He certainly would have responded with something like "Bleat, bleat, Bob. So now I'm a murderer am I? Or am I the anti-Christ, I thought that was all Clinton hatred all the time sucking on your pus-filled unit you little liar.") Anyway, for whatever reason, you, Pezz and Michelle, feel the need to blind yourself to Daniel's wrongs and try to divert the issue onto the wrongs of others. I've never understood the logic behind this concept that if someone I disagree with does something that's wrong then that means that if someone I agree with does it it's not wrong, but... It is curious how much all of this has reminded me of the Clinton defense. All through this I've seen the same illogic: the notion that if someone does something that is wrong that is somehow excused by the fact that others point it out, the notion that if others do it it somehow becomes not wrong, and the notion that those that I disagree with should be punished, while those that I agree with are unfairly persecuted when they're punished. Personally I wouldn't have been at all displeased if everyone who had engaged in the vitriol-spewing that took over this thread would have been suspended. It would have been interesting to see how each of them would have acted when the suspension was up. And nothing would have pleased me more than to have seen them all do some soul-searching and come back with a Pilch-style apology and set about debating in our normal abrasive manner. Daniel had the chance to do just this, and his failure to do so is entirely and completely his failure. That said, barring responses that I just can't ignore, I too am going to join the ranks of those who no longer wish to talk about him. He had his chance, and he blew it. Seriously, if you're lurking Daniel, work on that karma. It really will make your life more enjoyable. What goes around really does come around. -BLT