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 (79368)	5/4/2000 9:48:00 PM
From: George S. Montgomery	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

This statement, sentence, paragraph, whatever, that you have just made, is one of the most touchy-feely things I have encounted in recent memory: "However, I would argue against lunacy and defend to some degree, his possible feelings of paranoia." geo

To: Michael M who wrote (79368)	5/5/2000 6:50:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

The paranoia might have been understandable; some of the actions based on it at least bordered on lunacy. The thing I never understood about the whole Watergate incident was the total superfluity of it all: Nixon was running against one of the least electable candidates ever presented, and no serious analyst believed that his position was threatened. Why bother? Was there no analysis of risk vs. benefit? The whole campaign followed the same pattern: the overwhelming fundraising, the retention of the entire hoard for the Presidential campaign, even when partymates in Congress needed it desperately. And what sane politician would form or approve a fundraising arm called the Committee to Re-Elect the President, knowing that it would immediately and forever be known as CREEP? Lunacy is perhaps too strong a word, but there was something odd going on in there.