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: jbe who wrote (52390)	8/21/1999 3:10:00 AM
From: Michael M	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

E expresses an opinion to Steven -- Joan wants to know why E is "browbeating" him. Asked ever so sweetly, complete with a &*#?+@ smiley -- the Leo Buscaglia of smilies. What comes after gentle persuasion, Joan -- medication? Joan goes on to say maybe "we"..... Who is "we" Joan? Are you speaking for all or some on the thread? For "the state?" For "the people?" I wonder why someone so interested in words and their meanings doesn't just say "I" and drop the maybe altogether? ".....not interested in a question as hypothetical as the one that was posed." Fair enough. I eagerly await another essay on OED trivia and the ensuing debate. Now that's interesting! As critically important as language is, I'm almost ready to say, "Let's give Eubonics a chance!" It's my strong opinion that some of this OED one-upsmanship is about as smug and elitist as it gets. Good sport among the right sort of inbred Englishmen at a weekend gathering in the country. Continuing the "we" theme, "mankind" doesn't do wicked or stupid things -- individuals do. Why do you think humans are more morally deficient than other species? I got news for you, Joan, it really is a friggin' jungle out there. A definite eat or be eaten dynamic at work. When I lived in the country, I raised, among other things, doves -- you might be amazed at how vicious these peaceful little darlin's can be to one another. I find it purely unnatural that any creature would not go to any length to perpetuate itself. Damned Darwinian for someone who's comfortable with the possibility that there may be a God, don't you think? If there has been joy in your life, if you have seen majesty in art or music or starry nights or mighty oceans or northern lights or a first love's first kiss or selfless (often compelled - often not) accomplishments of persons great and small, if you've loved and been loved by your children, if you've been encouraged or treated kindly by others -- how could you deliberately deny those things to millions and millions who might experience them in all the time that's left? Would you choose to be Eve or turn the planet over to the oh-so-hard-to-kill cockroach? If you and I (with all the sweet and cruel promises of life ahead of us) are the last two -- you think the right thing to do would be for us to adopt a pet? To paraphrase the black woman in a current IBM TV spot -- "That IS stupid Joan." If you sincerely disagree with me (and I accept the fact that you do), I am sad for you. Two points in closing: Please don't associate E with my rant here. I agree with her but my purpose had nothing to do with "defending" her. Purely a solo deal. Joan, although I have made you the subject of harsh remarks, I have no animosity toward you. I think you would be an interesting person to know, regardless of conflicting views we may have. I wish you well. Michael

To: jbe who wrote (52390)	8/21/1999 1:58:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Respond to of 108807

>the only reason the human race would have been reduced to two people would be that mankind had done something terribly wicked and/or stupid - like start a nuclear war. Why perpetuate such a morally deficient species?< Imo there is a logical fissure here. Mankind doesn't start wars - people do. As a result it would be a stretch to call an entire species morally deficient. If the survivors are a bit put out by their uniformed colleagues' ill-considered actions - do they share the burden of moral deficiency? What is the higher governor of moral state - the honor of the individual or the collective? Imo it's the individual.