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 : Zeev's Turnips -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carl R. who wrote (320)	12/10/2000 2:15:33 PM
From: SBHX	Respond to of 644

Carl, I'm basically drawing conclusions out of thin air. These FSC judges all reached the pinnacle of their profession, and therefore must be brilliant capable people. In a sense, my assertion is not fair since I have only a portion of the facts, very little knowledge of law, and only an overriding sense of 'fairplay' to guide me. Perhaps it is true that they are aware of more facts and details of law and they do have some truly altruistic goals behind their decisions. If I can extend the metaphor a bit, I'd like to bring a simplified comparison. 1. There are laws that prevent people from running across highways stopping traffic to get to the other side (both in canada and US), and we all agree with that. Let's call this person who wants to run across the highway, Jim 2. Well, what if there was a hit and run victim on the other side who will die if Jim doesn't get there to help? Then the law should not apply as there is a much darker consequence of not getting there. 3. Well, what if in the process of getting there, Jim causes another series of accidents and got dozens of people hurt? Well, then the law should aply and the Jim should not have done it. 4. What if Jim did nothing that the victim dies and all the other accidents were not going to be fatal anyway? 5. What if Jim did save the victim and a few of the other accident victims died? How should the law have done here? ------ My own philosophy is actually very simple. It all boils down to the true intention of Jim. Since Jim truly wanted to help save a dying person, he cannot be blamed for what else happens next. What is the cause and effect here? Is there anything that truly says that without him, the accident would not happen? No. But there is reasonable certainty that the accident victim will die if he does nothing. But why am I uncomfortable with the entire Gore strategy if he is indeed willing to 'cause a few accidents' to save the dying victim (the prospect of a DEM president)? It's quite simple. I question his motives. It's not just the ambition, I said before that if he had stepped up and said : "I WANT to be president and will do anything to earn that responsibility", I will know at least he is honest about it and might even support him (morally, I'm canadian), but he did not say that. His message is , "(I drag the country through hell)... for the good of the people, that nothing must stand in the way of the votes of the people being counted." How many of his supporters really believe that? SbH