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: Michael M who wrote (58229)	10/10/1999 12:37:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

The winner will take a very large, sharp, hard sword and murder the other ones. A hand grenade is unlikely to do the job.

To: Michael M who wrote (58229)	10/10/1999 1:46:00 AM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<< Steven, as you know, I'm something of a sucker for these RR claims and counter-claims. I'm officially concluding my participation with the personal opinion that the country was in better (not perfect) shape when he left than when he arrived. >> Hmmm. That must mean that you will then view Clinton as the greatest of them all. Is this not the longest period of prosperity for a running president? No significant wars, no trading arms for hostages, no covert mining of harbors, etc.? No make-believe heroism that his worshipers still believe. Del

To: Michael M who wrote (58229)	10/10/1999 5:34:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 108807

I'm more than a little tired, frankly, of Presidents; I think we are far too leader-focused, and that we shape our leaders more than they shape us. I also think that many of the phenomena, both economic and geopolitical, that we attribute to the actions of our leaders are actually parts of larger cycles, over which individual administrations have very little control. I didn't read the post on the survival contest carefully, so there may be rules I didn't notice, but it seemed a piece of cake to me. The group votes, at intervals, to expel members. It will naturally expel those who are least valuable and most contentious. Value, in a survival situation, means whoever contributes the most to the provision of potable water, food, and shelter, in that order. If the demographic sought is, as I suspect "ordinary American", I don't think I'd have much trouble being the most valuable on the team. I've only spent the last 20 years training for it. Just finished a weekend kayaking class; the students were a couple in their early 30's, he works for the Asian Development Bank, she's a consultant with the Canadian embassy development aid program. He picked up the roll in about 15 minutes, she never got it. On the river, he dumped the boat about 15 times, she didn't flip once. He kept trying to muscle the boat around (he's also a little top-heavy), she just went with the flow. I suppose there's a lesson there somewhere.