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: Frederick Smart who wrote (86170)	8/23/2000 11:20:58 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Fred, I am glad that you are enjoying the manic phase, but you should take steps before the depressive phase kicks in..........or is this an elaborate rationalization for compulsive gambling?

To: Frederick Smart who wrote (86170)	8/23/2000 1:06:40 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

You CAN regulate risk. All of life is regulating and balancing RISKS. Every choice you make is essentially a risk balancing operation. If I have my child immunized, I run a slight risk of complications - some very serious. BUT on the other hand, I avoid the risk of them catching a serious childhood illness AND I protect society as well, for I am also covering for parents who do NOT get their children immunized. SO for me, I think the balance tips toward immunization- that is how I wish to regulate my children's risk For other parents the balance tips toward NOT immunizing (but of course part of their calculation is based on ME immunizing my kids to make the world safer for them not to do so). Now we come to different conclusions but both "sets" of parents are balancing the risks. I know of NO set of parents who wish to "embrace the risk" of childhood disease and use THAT as their rationale for not immunizing. Literally countless other examples spring to mind, but that ought to do.