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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zardoz who wrote (69121)	5/14/2001 11:57:20 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116779

rhetoric: noun polemic, speech, diatribe, expressed point of view or the manner of saying .. etc.. rhetorical: adverb for purposes of argument, illustrative question with implied answer. Question: noun inquiry, query, demand, also verb taking infinitive upbraid, take issue with, cast doubt upon, sometimes by (logical) or pointed query. ramble verb, intransitive wander, travel aimlessly without destination, muse. So is your rhetoric and question directed to according to the logical point at hand, or is ad hominem your only defense for your raison d'etre? May we ramble around at least around points of reason, pretending that we act with reason that we can know, and defend by intelligent argument? Or are we so above it all, so enobled and self justifying are our actions and life? So yes, to relax and not take insult that may be only a sign of weakness on the part of the attacker, yes, we do want answers. We just don't expect them from you. Come down off your high horse. Many who have small achievements and not much reason talk like you. Any kid in the school yard has better insults. Many suffer from ADS when their pet theories are intelligently questioned. If they cannot step up to the plate and hit one out of the park, they criticize the pitcher. I don't really think you are a bad guy, but I really want you to stop believing morons like J H. Keynes. At first he sounds brilliant. But all his conclusions are wrong. How do you go from brilliant analysis to wrong conclusions? It isn't hard. Just be a lazy arrogant thinker. Answers are much more difficult to come up with than laying out the problem sometimes. You don't even seem to realize there is a problem. I think that governments of the 20th century are flooding the world with worthless currency and crippling the basic industries that keep man from being a simple hunter - gatherer. In fact the steel industry, mining industry and agricultural industry are far more important than the ministry of the environment, computers and managing the M1 by jiggling interest rates. Once all the jobs are gone paper can be used to wipe and that is it. Answer one question. What is money? Once you have done that and understand the answer you can then go on to see why Keynes and his followers are either morons or, as some have suggested evil men. If you have a mind it might be worth changing. If all you want to do is cling knee jerk to rhetoric that mommy-gov't and your liberal commie friends in socialist economy 101 taught you, then I have to ask you, what is your problem and when are you going to get help? Don't you see that you have a psychological complex if you trust gov'ts to manage the economy in the ways that they have? You basically never left home. You just substituted liberal politicians for mother. It makes you feel good to agree with authority as you don't have to be out in the cold and think to survive. Is there something about ten boom-bust cycles since paper money became Europe's god that you cannot see? I will bet you think that deficit financing is not just "not paying your bills". EC<:-}