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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (11827)	4/18/2001 12:53:01 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

From my perspective, that disqualifies them as authentic discussion, which is not antagonistic per se........

To: epicure who wrote (11827)	4/18/2001 12:54:15 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Now, the question arises: Which is the REAL real X? Nasty, or nice? Mean and vindictive, or charming and pleasant? Caustic, or comforting? Which one really requires the work, and which one comes naturally? Please prove that the nice X is the REAL real X. Use only physical evidence and mathematical proof, no fuzzy personal anecdotes of past events which cannot be precisely replicated, no "ancient writings," nothing but real, absolute, hard proof. Since the nasty X was the original, the presumption is that it was the real. Can you rebut the presumption with hard evidence? In fairness, I advise you in advance that I will find some way to reject any proof you offer. Just noting that I, at least, am fair and honorable.