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.

Technology Stocks : Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PJ Strifas who wrote (34577)	11/2/2000 2:31:03 PM
From: kilo_watt	Respond to of 42771

Wow, that was an inspired post. I'm going to print that out and save it. Well said, PJ. I have great admiration for those who can take a complex topic and articulate it simply and clearly. You have definitely done that. You are helping me be a better Buddhist.

To: PJ Strifas who wrote (34577)	11/7/2000 10:45:37 AM
From: Frederick Smart	Respond to of 42771

OFF TOPIC: Peter..... >>To: Frederick Smart who wrote (34571) From: PJ Strifas Thursday, Nov 2, 2000 2:24 PM ET Reply # of 34717 Did you read the same story I did about a kid hammering nails into a fence? The fence does not represent any one person or thing in fact, to me the fence only represents the point of the kid's anger. He was angry so he nailed a nail into the wood. This act in itself is not symbolic at all (I'll get to that in a moment). It helps to set up the real symbolizm in the parable but it is not the main point. So later when the kid realized that all this anger was bad, he was told to go and remove the nails. Again, this act is not symbolic of anything. It goes to the setup of the lesson to be learned. Do yo get that so far? Now, after all this - the kid is asked to take a good look at the fence and notice all the holes. Now here is the symbolism - the holes represent scars (physical or mental) that occured to others because of the anger. It's a physical representation that the kid (and reader) can visualize and carry with them. So that's the moral of the story. Again, you liken yourself to a martyr (or on this thread as a victim) so you may "enlighten" us all with your trials. You are not the fence. Scott is not the fence and nor is Steware Nelson. The fence is not symbolic in the story of any "thing or being" so in that sense, it can not represent any thing or being. It's the scars or better put - the damage inflicted by the hammering of so many nails into the wood that is the symbol! This is meant to show the kid that uncontrolled anger is a BAD thing (that being the DAMAGE he caused!). In short, a very good learning lesson for anyone who reads it. Now you have co-opted it to make a statement that you are unjustly attacked by people. I'd like to forgive you but how was it said...."he without sin cast the first stone?" So who am I to judge and therefore forgive because I would do so based on my own value system! That's where some people find the arrogance. Who are you to judge and forgive anyone? Better yet, who are you to tell us that you have judged and forgave based on your own value system!?! You know what, that's nice Fred but really, forgiveness is something you do for yourself. To actually TELL someone else that you forgive them is arrogant. Just do it and find happiness/peace within yourself. For someone else to know you have done so does not enhance anything (except maybe your self-esteem). Regards, Peter J Strifas PS - my apologies to those who read this thread for information on trading in Novell stock. I will refrain from the "off-topic" remarks on this subject after this post.>> Anger has to have a target. You outlined as much in your post above.... "Now, after all this - the kid is asked to take a good look at the fence and notice all the holes. Now here is the symbolism - the holes represent scars (physical or mental) that occured to others because of the anger." I know this may sound wacky, but I firmly believe that when people lash out in anger at external targets they are really lashing out internally against themselves. For whatever reason, I have become a target for Scott, Stewart and others inside Novell. I'll just guess it's because of the questions I have raised about those $.10 options. Shareholders have a right to ask these questions. And I'm not doing this in anger. For I am not angry at Frederick Smart. I am actually trying to point out something that I believe should be understood - ie. leadership actions that have a "what's in it for me" mark can only corrupt others. Left unchallenged, this corruption can only create more rot. I fully expected to be challenged tooth and nail by Scott, Nelson et. al. on these points. For this is the nature of the beast. Attack, blame, deflect, spin. Attack, blame, deflect, spin. What Stewart did was WRONG. Period. And I, you or anybody else doesn't have to get angry over it. If Stewart or Scott wants to get angry at me then, fine. I'll be the fence for their anger. But that's going too far. For it's an insult to even talk about these guys getting angry at such a guy like Frederick Smart. Who am I? Any acknowledgment to ANYONE asking ANY questions along these lines should be grounds for criticism inside Novell. So Kilo is right. Scott is taking risks even responding to Frederick Smart. I believe Scott knows what Stewart did was questionable, but he's rationized it six ways to Sunday. And that's all that matters. Bottom line: he has ZERO problem with anything Stewart Nelson has done. PERIOD. As for judgment and forgiveness, none of us have the power to ultimately judge, but we do have a responsibility to stand up for what is "right." This is a far cry from judging. For judgment is final. And nothing we mere mortals do is final. Everything we are all about is the result of some blessing we've been freely given: life, feelings, skills, energy, food, shelter, family, love, etc. Stating and standing up for the truth is a mandate we all have the power to exercise. But the only way to go about this - internally with ourselves and externally with others - is to reach within and without in the spirit of forgiveness. For forgiveness is the pathway that ends separation with our internal truth about ourselves as well as external truth that apply to others. We each have been blessed with the power to forgive just as we have been blessed with the power to LOVE. If you have trouble with this power to LOVE, then perhaps you will also have trouble with this power to forgive. For we cannot love others unless we first forgive ourselves. So perhaps you don't want me to forgive myself. Perhaps you want me to keep nailing those nails in my own fencem and these other fences which you think have become targets for my internal anger. Perhaps that's what Scott, you and many others have me pegged as: an unhappy person - a "whiner" to use Scott's phrase - who looks at everything and everyone from a negative perspective. This fits very well with the circular logic that shuts out questions that come from folks like me who challenge these personally and politically inverted energy paradigms. It's really all such a waste of time and energy. And it does get back to Scott's main point - "so what??" (DO vs. TALK). But the bottom line is that Novell's "doing" will continue to invert, refract and limit it's future potential unless it comes clean by asking these very tough questions. Standing up for "what's right" in this world is political suicide. And in Novell's case it goes several steps futher - economic suicide. In this environment, as with Stewart's case, it's easier to just take now and ask or face questions later. But that's always the case. In a round about way, that's it Peter. Not angry. Just making a point. The ruckus is being raised elsewhere by those who don't want this point explored. Peace. GO!!