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 (78947)	4/26/2000 12:47:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I have my own ideas about what the laws should be- and my ideas differ radically from the ways laws actually are, and I'm a lawyer.

To: jbe who wrote (78947)	4/26/2000 1:13:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Respond to of 108807

>At the same time, I wonder whether the force fields (i.e., the competing claims) are really comparable to forces of nature. The former cannot be changed, but the latter can, or at least the laws on which they are based can be.< My $.02 is that the metaphor is pretty good. The force fields depend on two things: the immutable laws of nature and the terrain. If the terrain to which the fields are pinned is changed, the domains of the force fields adjust in one liquid motion (in the natural world) and in a flurry of motions (in the hyperspace of jurisprudence).