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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Millennium Crash -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: onurbius who wrote (5243)	6/8/2000 1:39:00 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5676

onurbius, Re: "GG typed a thinly veiled personal attack on Heinz, one of the most gifted and intelligent posters it has ever been my pleasure to meet online." I'd have to say there was an attack, but it wasn't personal, and it wasn't thinly veiled at all, for two reasons. First, he forthrightly disagreed and plainly, IMO anyway, ridiculed a few of the examples Heinz used to back his position. Gilder was obvious, not veiled. But by citing Heinz's examples, Gilder went directly to his argument, not to Heinz the man. While my use of the word "riducule" above may be somewhat correct, if strong, ridicule is not synonymous with casting ad hominems about. I don't believe there is a pure personal ad hominem in Mr. Gilders post at all. Second, he alluded to what he believes is a powerful reality concerning the effects of vastly improved communication upon mankind. Little touched upon in the replies to Mr. Gilder, the improvement in communication is being sorely underestimated by many here, IMO. So solid is the value of communication throughout history, and in everyday reality today, that your notion that Mr. Gilder offers "technopshchobabble," couldn't be further from the plain truth, IMO. His post here cannot detract from the value of communication, and it might be fair to say that he does not advocate a "communications miracle," so much as he simply believes he knows communication IS a miracle of a fairly grand kind. Ego then, to me, was the smallest element in his post, which I believe ought to be examined with minds opened just a wee bit wider. Mr. Gilder then, advocates technologies that he feels would improve communication. His advocacy of such technologies is not a "supposed" thing, it is simply true. Such advocacy is wise indeed if improved communication is of the inestimable value I suspect it is- and there is the real debate. I feel, for starters, that arguing against the value of communication is akin to the classic sort of short-sightedness exhibited by bookburners and Luddites. For someone to imagine improved communication as bringing simply much more conversation by folks with nothing to say, is to reveal an extremely backwards pessimism combined with a limited, narrowly focused, view of reality. With improved communications, I believe the advancement and deployment of useful technologies not themselves based in communications, can be altered for the better rapidly. Real products, with surprising utilities and benefits to us all(yes, by all I mean the "poor" too), should result much sooner thanks to improved communication. Ignorance is bliss, 'til what you don't know gets you killed. Dan B