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: Neocon who wrote (49940)	8/8/1999 12:36:00 PM
From: James R. Barrett	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

"Finally, the creation of weapons of mass destruction was inevitable anyway, and we probably have more to fear from anthrax bombs than plutonium bombs..... " Can you think of some way to destroy Christine's weapon of mass destruction, "cut and paste"?

To: Neocon who wrote (49940)	8/8/1999 12:51:00 PM
From: George S. Montgomery	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Neo, you cause me to scratch me head... I spent two enjoyable hours on this thread this morning. And contributed some undeniably astute observations. Of that two hours, you were the only one to respond - and to respond with an admirable sensitivity to the essence of the proferred observations. (Terry, unfortunately, but predictably, only reacted to poor Jimmy, whose lips were busilly (how do you spell busy-ly?) working up and down his, Terry's, nether regions.) You most obviously, and most pedantically, claim to cite from The Guide to Absolute Truth. That is why I am scratching my head. Instead of seeing matters as fixed boundaries, can we not alter the perspective? To wit: You mention anthrax and plutonium as sort of inevitable choices to be made in a world where, as you claim, the atom bomb was one of the best things to happen in this century. Is that necessarily so? If one could modify the perspective, could take the hypotheses of the Beattle's "Imagine", might not most of the playing pieces change? Would we be glued to an atmosphere that, by no means, can be seen as encouraging? What if, for example, a cure for cancer could be found, along with an understanding of the need to control overpopulation, along with an agreement on land conservation and environmental protection? Wouldn't we then be aimed more towards our mutual preservation than our mutual destruction? Why, this is my basic question, when we find ourselves in poisonous swamp, do we have to deal with the cards that have been dealt? Why can we not seek, and demand, new hands? In other words, if the game we are playing seems to be a shoddy one, why is it IMPOSSIBLE to work towards a new, and differently principled, game? gsm ps: I travel light - not living in a capital letter world. I must try to communicate this to EdA. I feel sometimes like a quark, and sometimes like a cosmos - with all the splitting and lumping laid by the roadside. Why is our current position one that should be supported, as if it were all there was? g.