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: one_less who wrote (50566)	6/12/2002 1:42:58 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Yes. You resolve the other problems on their own terms. As long as he continues to provide you with vegetables, you are obligated to provide him with water. That's the nature of an agreement. If we adopt your implied reasoning, there is no such thing as a binding contract because anybody can get out of such an agreement even when the other party has fully complied, just by raising some totally ancillary argument. For example, if we have a treaty with Canada that we will drop tariffs on softwood lumber if they drop tariffs on auto parts, and that's a signed deal, and the tariffs are all dropped, and then they overfish the Great lakes, doing damage to our fish stocks, we would be entitled to revoke the treaty and start charging tariffs on softwood lumber. Life doesn't work that way.

To: one_less who wrote (50566)	6/12/2002 2:14:07 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 82486

Thanks, Jewel.

To: one_less who wrote (50566)	6/12/2002 3:27:11 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 82486

In addition to my previous post, your analogy is inaccurate because Laz didn't take his action based on anything between him and me. The correct analogy for you, if you want to use yours, is that your neighbor did that those things to some other neighbor entire, and was still providing you your vegetables according to the agreement and being perfectly cordial to you and your family. Is it your contention that if he had done those thing not to your dog or kid, but to others, you would still be entitled to terminate your agreement with him?