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: Ilaine who wrote (78700)	4/23/2000 2:26:00 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Hi, Cobe and all. I'm dropping by with my briefcase chock full of posts I want to show you guys. I see you're talking about Elian. So this is WAY off topic. But it contains a link to such an interesting article from the New Republic that even if you don't want to read the urls, you'll want to check that out, I think. The abortion question has often been argued here, so I know there are those on the thread who are interested in it. On the Bush thread, an exchange that I have found startling and elucidating has just taken place. An anti-abortion absolutist posted some information that I had come across before (was it here?), but for some reason this time it struck me strongly enough as peculiar that I looked at it more closely. I think it's important in more than one way, so I am going to show this thread. I recall that there is some question about the propriety of posting other people's words where they didn't intend them to be posted. I think everyone posts url's to other's posts, though. But to be sure, I'll only post the url's to my own posts on this subject on the other thread, and hope that anyone interested in the subject will read the connecting links enough to follow what unfolded. I use a lot of quotes, anyway. I want to say that I consider the subject of most interest to be not abortion, but the ethics of those in the "prolife" movement who promulgate this sort of sensationalist lie. First, I want to post a link to an article in The New Republic discussing neurological studies of fetuses. I actually think that this article will interest absolutely everybody, even if the exchange that followed it doesn't. Ish posted that he'd read it all the way through, it had been so interesting. Here's the article: tnr.com After I posted that article, I had a PM exchange that I posted, with permission: Message 13475801 That post sharing the PM's elicited a very short, "shouted," reply of which this is the text that got me curious: <<<TWENTY FOUR DAYS-------HEART BEGINS TO BEAT FORTY DAYS------------HEART'S ENERGY OUTPUT AT 20% OF ADULTS>>> But even though I was curious about that "energy output" stat, I posted first addressing the "shouted" heart beat claim. This isn't very interesting, except that my antagonist simply refused to answer the question, though I asked it several times, and that was interesting to me. You could skip it: Message 13479759 This is where I think it gets interesting, though: Message 13479793 But I hadn't done any research, I only had a strong suspicion that something was rotten. Today I Asked Jeeves, and came up with some interesting information, and posted this. Message 13481424 And if this interests you, you will find these posts interesting, and read the posts that they are replies to: Message 13481128 Message 13482116 Message 13482472 The reason I think many of you would (and should) find this interesting becomes clearest in the bolded words in last post above, in my opinion. Hmmm. Now that I think of it, there have been some other topics over there I wish had been discussed here instead. Where I'd have more company. I hope. Maybe I'll go plunder Bush for the ones I'd like to have posted here. It's too late tonight, though. Tomorrow, maybe. Do read all of the other party's posts connecting to the one's of mine i've provided the links too. They are what is interesting. I wonder what reactions will be.