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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (8904)	12/29/2001 12:56:42 PM
From: alan w	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Are you related to Jocelyn Elders?

To: jttmab who wrote (8904)	12/29/2001 1:24:23 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Prototypes of "safer land mines." Sounds like something the military would dream up. The notion reminds me of the phrase, "friendly fire." American missiles kill other Americans. Somehow, it is okay to do it because they were trying to be friendly!

To: jttmab who wrote (8904)	12/31/2001 5:45:17 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Amazingly, I think Mephisto finally got one right. "Safer land mines" is an oxymoron. That's like safer HCN. Let's say it's half the concentration as another brand. Takes twice as long to kill you. But you're still dead. The purpose of personnel land mines, jttmab, is to kill personnel. If they're safe, they fail in their purpose. No one can concieve of such that, say, can be activated and de-activated remotely. But when activated they're going to kill or wound whoever is unlucky enough to detonate them.