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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (55551)	9/16/2001 6:17:46 PM
From: boris_a	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Joe: Can you imagine the mass confusion Yes. That's why I explicitely wrote about international law and the UN. The parties involved are members by their free will. Hence respecting the rules is mandatory. Regards, Boris

To: Joe NYC who wrote (55551)	9/16/2001 6:32:07 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 275872

Hi Jozef Halada; Re different groups claiming ownership of the same piece of property. That's right. I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that the wisest policy is the one that simply divides up the land (possibly 100% to 0%) in such a way as to minimize the resulting violence. For us, that would be the resulting violence in the United States. Generally speaking, this means to give 100% of the land to the larger or stronger party. When both sides are "right", "might makes right". I don't mean to suggest that I would know how to apply this principle, just to say that the principle of who owns something by right of prior conquest is not going to work. -- Carl