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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jcky who wrote (1699)	3/7/2002 12:22:23 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Being scarred for life may not be the same when you're ninety but how do you factor in the ninety year old's family who may be dependent on his fortunes which have now fallen into a predator's hand? I know that the elderly may be equally incompetent. But I'm not sure the two are equally vulnerable. I say that as someone with an 88 year old father and as someone who might be considered a "senior" herself depending on where you draw that line. I'm not suggesting that the elderly do not also need our protection. I just don't see the damage done to the geezer as remotely equivalent to the damage to the child. Sure, he's lost money and self esteem, but he doesn't have all that long to mourn his mistake, and he's probably too out of it to even realize he was snookered. I don't mean to be cavalier about his suffering or condone the blonde, I simply consider child predation among the worst of evils, not at all comparable to a swindle. The damage to the geezer's family is another matter. I don't know about you, but I'm looking after my father and his interests. No blonde is going to swindle him. And if she does, it's my job to pick up the slack. I owe that to him. And to me. Karen