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 (51647)	6/4/1999 8:04:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Interesting perspective. Your opinion of course. JLA

To: jbe who wrote (51647)	6/4/1999 11:25:00 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

joan, Well I see you're still quite adept at defending the indefensible. What you said about Schuh was: >>Dan Schuh, after having been stung repeatedly by a million wasps, finally went bonkers,<< to which Bill Vaughn accurately pointed out that you were assigning him "victim" status. Speaking strictly from my own personal experience with the inimitable Mr. Schuh. A much more apt description would be he was much more like the annoying insect that keeps coming back to bite and sting, no matter how many times you wave it away, finally you get fed up and take out the fly swatter and eliminate the irritant. Basically I considered his doltish behaviour insufferable and rather than "swat" at him, I chose to ignore his posts, but even with that, whenever I would make an appearance, I would usually receive an unsolicited, insulting comment from him. Eventually I went into mostly lurk mode to avoid him and once I saw that SI recognized his blatant violation of the terms of use and removed him, I decided that the thread was "safe" for normal discourse. BTW, I notice that your original appearance here was due to an errant post of Neocon's, so your opinion is duly noted...... feel free to retire to your Grammar thread where your type of "correction" seems to be appreciated. bp

To: jbe who wrote (51647)	6/4/1999 4:52:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Joan, I always enjoyed reading your posts, despite the length and obvious left slant. (Probably obvious to everyone but you!) And I appreciate the effort you make to document your points. However, I take serious issue with this conclusion of yours: "And you DID try to get Dan thrown off the thread, didn't you?" No, everyone here gave Dan every opportunity to stay. For nine months, Dan terrorized this thread with cutting juvenile verbiage, that if delivered by me or any other here you disagree with politically, would have been reported to SI immediately. Dan crossed the line in his final week by harassing me in every post I made. Dan asked, dared, pleaded, begged me to report him. Finally, I acquiesced. And now he's gone, not because I reported him, but because of his own own posts and his own actions surrounding his suspension. Honestly, I didn't want Dan thrown off the thread, if he had something to contribute. But he exhausted that opportunity. So, no, you are wrong when you say that.

To: jbe who wrote (51647)	6/5/1999 1:12:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

From almost the beginning of his arrival on this thread Daniel's posts contained sarcasm and personal assaults. Perhaps the general environment here was harsh before his arrival. Even so, this gives neither you nor he recourse to complain about his being assaulted. Had he wanted to be free of assaults or claim the logical ability to complain against those who assaulted him, he should have refrained from assaults altogether. He did not. His sarcasm and insults were constant and certainly fueled the bad blood between he and virtually everyone in the opposition with whom he dialogued. Now I likely have done the same thing, but unlike Daniel, I do not complain against liberal attacks against me. As far as I am concerned, they really do not exist. Nevertheless even in my case the bad blood between Daniel and I was started by none other than Daniel Schuh. 11822 (Dan's first direct insult to me) So, Mr. leftist ad hominem ad nauseum, would you like to tell us how much you know about the law? I think I ignored the insult, but in my mind it caused me to remove Daniel from that group of wrongheaded but personally innocuous combatants I then called “liberals” to a less worthy group I called “enemies.” Here is Daniel's first post that seemed to in earnest provoke Bill Vaughn's wrath (Bill's behaviour toward Daniel was just fine up to this point): Daniel Schuh #5417: And we also know, at least according to Bill "Facts" Vaughn, that George Bush did not commit perjury. I have to apologize to Mr. Vaughn in advance for this stupid, moronic rant, throwing insults and flames into this perfectly legitimate conversation that Ken Starr has started up for us. It's just all this teeming hate and ignorance inside of me. We all know that Bill Clinton's alleged perjury, which I was willing to assume but now seems a bit of a stretch in legal terms, is the only "fact" that could possible matter here. Daniel started here with sarcastic personal insults and received them in kind. Once he uttered his Bill “Facts” Vaughn insult, he became less innocuous and more an enemy if I am an accurate judge of human nature. Vaughn certainly could not view him as one who simply wanted to engage in constructive debate, because Daniel began to cast aspersions on his ability to present facts, attempting to make it appear Vaughn was chronically deficient. It is one thing to tell a person he is not presenting the facts about a matter, and quite another to attach the deficiency to the person in the manner Daniel did. Daniel drove the point home with this little tidbit: Daniel Schuh #5417: Uh huh. As Ronald Reagan said, Facts are stupid things. I prefer the Walsh branch of the Republican party to the Starr / Newt / Abrams / Vaughn* branch, but I'm stupid.* This was a flagrant and personal assault, and so Daniel started the bad blood between himself and Vaughn. And it was down hill from there. 5423 (From Dan to Bill Vaughn) As for stooges, right now it looks like most people think Ken Starr is a stooge or worse. Oh, I got that definition wrong, "stooges", like "stupid" and "hateful", exclusively apply to people who disagree with you. You got "facts" on your side, though. I hope you and Ken enjoy your pompous moral superiority good in the weeks to come. To which Bill, with arguable appropriateness, called Dan an idiot. Then Dan responded with 5464 Thank you for the compliment. War is peace, Ignorance is strength, and Ken Starr is non-partisan and objective in his quest for justice. Not a hint of hatred there either. You're making me feel stronger all the time. Then Bill, giving us a classic response, said <<Ignorance is strength...>> Thank you for that insight Arnold Scwartzenaegger. --------- As for JLA, his statements up to Daniel were not direct personal attacks. They were very broad and in some cases even conditional statements. It certainly should not have caused Daniel to assault him directly and personally. Nevertheless that is precisely what happened. In the following post you will find JLA quoting Ayn Rand as part of his GENERAL thrust against empty-headed “tolerance.” Message 5849807 Then Daniel sarcastically and directly badgered JLA with claims that JLA was a member of the religious right. techstocks.com Then JLA, showing remarkable restraint with Daniel, informed Daniel he is not of the RR, even as Daniel continued his sarcasm elsewhere. techstocks.com Then Daniel made the fatal mistake of flagrantly and directly insulting JLA. techstocks.com In what seemed to be shock, JLA responded to Daniel. techstocks.com Similar to other cases of antagonism involving Daniel, the thing went downhill from there. Daniel was offensive even before these posts, but I merely post these to show you that any claim that Daniel began here civilly and was forced to his eventual lunacy by others is just plain wrong. When your mother said “it takes two to make a quarrel,” she likely meant that if someone wants to argue, let them do it alone. Daniel did not take your mother's advice.