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: Rarebird who wrote (69597)	5/20/2001 9:17:22 AM
From: Crimson Ghost	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116972

Top gold analyst Steve Saville sees commercial net short position is bullish for POG: As at May-15 the Commercials were net-short COMEX gold futures to the tune of 14,000 contracts and their net-short position will almost certainly have moved higher after the rally of the past few days. We have previously mentioned that gold rallies always begin when the Commercial Traders are net-long, but that they typically move to being net-short during the early stages of a rally. We've also noted that the biggest gains tend to occur after the Commercials become net-short (this is certainly what happened during the 1993 gold bull market). The Commitments of Traders Report is supportive of our view that the US$ is about to embark on a substantial decline, with the Swiss Franc and the Canadian Dollar having particularly bullish traders' commitments.

To: Rarebird who wrote (69597)	5/20/2001 10:56:08 AM
From: goldworldnet	Respond to of 116972

<<Here are a few questions for you Holy One>> I have no inside track on human existence, just don't like bad manners. Best, josh

To: Rarebird who wrote (69597)	5/20/2001 1:07:36 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116972

You say: That means, in accordance with my values, there can no longer be an a priori Good, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. and then you say: Nothing can be good for a Humanist without being Good for all. The latter claim assumes there is an a priori "good", contradicting your former claim.

To: Rarebird who wrote (69597)	5/20/2001 1:50:06 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 116972

No one is truly morale unless perfectly knowing. (Soc.) No one can know anything perfectly so all men err pathetically in their earnest and vain attempts to be moral. I think that was what the Canaan philosophe meant when he said all men were sinners. They all make mistakes due their particular limited view and their appetites. They also try to get away with stuff but I don't think that is always totally immoral. Grabbing a ten dollar bill from where it isn't nailed down when no one is looking is no more immoral then contracting to work and sloughing off when the boss is not looking. Just don't grab the ten dollar bill off me or you will know how immoral it is to steal from my cache in my opinion. There are even those who think that morality means checking ID for age and wearing a condom. (After your army has slaughtered the better part of the populace presumably) It may incorporate such lofty principles, but I think that morality means not working for the government out of principle. Free? Hmmmm... free from what? Surely not from boils, lice, poverty and gossip. Or needing to get our food from the local market. We are only as free as the local gov't has lets us be and if our papers check out as politically correct for the times. Free? To be lazy? To camp on the beach? To farm the hinterland without a permit? Ask Thoreau what free from mankind is all about. The further away you try to get the more you realize are bound to the group. Nice to talk free, to imagine free, but to be free is different. It means to be independent. that is a tough racket. You have to have your own mine, farm, chemical plant and construction industry. Busy boy, free boy. I don't really know what kind of guy David Koresh was. Bad or good, by whatever standard. But he is free. Now. I am not making an argument that we should not try to be as non controlling of the populace as possible. We should definitely let people go their own way as much as we can. It is easier and more energy efficient for a society to let its people to be self determining among the co-operative pathways that the better of us can convince the collective to make. Man has both a libertine, lazy, tendency to excess, not in the most ascetic of societies and tomes completely proscribed, and also a little understood tendency to peace and organization that is deeply rooted in this brain, where one seeks the maximum/minimum level of stimulus he can naturally endure. One also needs collective co-operation to live the safest easiest life, so one will always live with and depend on their neighbour. This need has tended to create governments that were organized and peaceful for the most part. In that we are here (mankind has survived his wars), and have several thousand governments, it cannot be otherwise than it is our most natural tendency. So Toynbee is wrong. We did not get here by the skin of our teeth, but would have anyway, human sacrifice, Ghengis Khan, politico-religion and war notwithstanding. If there were an a priori good it would be that natural law must dictate it and it can dictate it without the odd bird there to view it even. Perhaps the dinosaurs knew good. Heck I bet they even went to the tar pits to roll around and kick out the jams once in a while. It may not have been human good, but dinosaur good it definitely was. Is consciousness the centre of the universe? Is definition the arbiter of what is defined? Man's understanding of good is from his observation of nature. If it happens and is some kind of continuum, he must argue it cannot be bad, even if it is inconvenient to him. Therefore if he defines nature as good, let's say, then it was there before him, even if he was from it, therefore good can exist where he would not. It just does not exist to satisfy his mind, but the ideal mind if it did exist. Socrates not Sartre. Good, of course, is a construct of the mind and where mind does not exist that perception is not in existence. What it would perceive may be. No way of telling anyone about it though if the teller is not there. I guess this answers the oft asked question. Was it good for you? If we didn't exist but the universe did, it wouldn't be good for me or you either. But if only I die has good died? Your philosophy would imply that it did somehow. Question: where does will begin and necessity end? EC<:-}