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 : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (33482)	10/21/2000 4:31:04 PM
From: straight life	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

2. My personal belief is that the 1947 UN decision to take away some Arab land and hand it to a new state, Israel, was plain stupidity. The basis for "ownership" of this land by the people of Israel is the old testament, a scarcely believable document. The echoes of this stupid decision will be with us forever. While it's probably not wise to enter into political/philosophical discussions in this forum, I just can't let your views simply sit here. The Jews never left Israel in their entirety, there's always been Jewish communities there; their ranks simply started swelling there in the 19th century, due to persecution and the Zionist movement, which said if other peoples don't want us, won't have us, let us go home. It also wasn't "Arab" land, it was Turkish land that became a British mandate when the Turks picked the wrong side in WW I. The Holocaust and the unwillingness of others to open their doors to Jewish refugees during/after the war opened the floodgates to Israel. With or without the UN, the Jewish state would've become a fait accompli.-one more opinion PS- In your own country should the flood of French and English settlers in the 17th century be reversed and their peoples sent "home"?

To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (33482)	10/21/2000 5:56:09 PM
From: Jason W	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

2. My personal belief is that the 1947 UN decision to take away some Arab land and hand it to a new state, Israel, was plain stupidity. To say that I respectfully disagree with your statement would be an understatement of monumental proportions. Suffice it to say that I disagree with every single word you typed, and ask you to respect that we do not discuss politics on this thread. Jason W letsnotgothere@bitingmytonguebigtime.com

To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (33482)	10/22/2000 5:02:25 AM
From: Curbstone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

...the old testament, a scarcely believable document... Malcolm, Only someone willfully ignorant of history, woefully ignorant of literature, and completely ignorant of the micro-science of textual criticism would say something like that. For starters, the old testament is not "a document," but is in fact, 39 separate documents. If you count each Psalm as an individual document you can add 150 more. Are all 189 documents scarcely believable? Did you know that the astoundingly important discoveries starting in 1947 of the Dead Sea Scrolls (circa 200bc-65ad) contained either fragments or entire copies of every book in the Hebrew canon except Esther, and that they match modern translations (the Isaiah document for instance) almost word for word? Did you also know that if you used the same metrics of textual criticism to simultaneously evaluate the historical reliability and accuracy of the Hebrew Old Testament, Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Euclid and Virgil, that the veracity of the OT is so superior as to be in a class completely by itself? Throw out this scarcely believable OT and you must also, justifiably, throw out as untrustworthy and inaccurate, almost every other ancient manuscript on which western civilization was founded. No Malcolm, the only scarcely believable documents I've seen lately are a quote from analyst Ed Snyder regarding QCOM being "on a teeter-totter" with Nokia, and your SI G & K post #33482. Respectfully, Mike

To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (33482)	10/22/2000 8:35:38 AM
From: Apollo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

I'd like to thank Malcolm, limtex, Dr. Id, and others for their perspectives. My intention wasn't to introduce political opinion, but was strictly to ask and have answered the question of what to do, investing-wise, during a major political shock/confrontation. I hesitated about posting on the Middle East for quite awhile, because, as is evident to everybody, it is an unbelievably value-laden, confused, hot potato issue, mixing religion with cultures, with land rights, with.......the scrolls of the dead sea??? I risked mentioning it here on this thread, because it has been a role-model for civil discourse, and because the maturity factor here tends to be high. It's evident that should the Middle East conflict dominate center stage thru confrontation, we all will definitely be affected, and we all will be challenged to discuss the issue in a straightforward but tactful way. With that said, I'd especially like to thank Malcolm since he directly responded to my investment question. If there are others out there, perhaps older than me and certainly with longer investing experience than me, who have been investing for decades and can share their experience with what they have learned during worldwide disasters, that would be helpful to me. For example, it's my recollection that during the 4-5 months after Iraq invaded Kuwait, the market was in the dumps......but after the launching of Desert Storm, the market took off. Those who were actively investing then might want to share any insights or corrections to that if they wish. So I would neither rush in and buy nor dump the good stocks. Malcolm, it sounds like you think accumulating cash right now is the right strategy. If true, for how long would you do this? What would be indications to start buying again, as it relates to political maelstroms? Apollo