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: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (38739)	11/26/2001 11:43:12 AM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

That's ok. So did I. We can go to a meeting together later. Yes, it would be more worrisome to me if it was someone innately hateful and dangerous.

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (38739)	11/26/2001 11:59:41 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

The reason I thought of Michael Jackson was his rather odd treatment of children and the production thereof. I have concerns for the mental health of any child under his influence, let alone a clone. I have no problem at all with a world populated by Michael Jacksons. Karen

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (38739)	11/26/2001 12:10:43 PM
From: thames_sider	Respond to of 82486

Well, I thought of MJ because he seems sufficiently weird, self-absorbed (even self-obsessed), blind to public regard and rich to accomplish it. And I definitely think that the clone would grow up somewhat, ah, emotionally disadvantaged WRT most others... and the permanent therapy would seem likely. I agree, he might not want to do it if the resultant clone appeared (as presumably it would) like the MJ of 1972 <g> And there are many far more threatening possibilities (even though I loathe everything he's done except Billie Jean). I just don't see them as so outstandingly likely.