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.

Non-Tech : Auric Goldfinger's Short List -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Francois Goelo who wrote (10142)	7/15/2002 10:14:22 AM
From: Edscharp	Respond to of 19428

Francois, You're definitely missing the point. For instance, caucasian people are often referred to as 'white' in spite of the fact that, strictly speaking, they are not white at all. Place a white sheet of paper next to a caucasian's skin and you will realize they are a tan or light brown. 'Caucasian'is the most appropriate term to use, but that doesn't stop virtually everybody in the States from using the term 'white' or 'black' when discussing race issues. The point you're missing is that it's not regarded as incorrect usage here to use those less than accurate terms. It is culturally acceptable to refer to ourselves this way in the same way we refer to ourselves as "Americans". It is not unusual for certain words, terms or descriptions, even though not exactly accurate, to enter into a language and become readily understood. It's called common usage. The English language, especially 'U.S.A. English' is constantly changing. Language use is not regulated by any government agency. People outside of the United States can refer to us in any way they want. We refer to ourselves as 'Americans'. To use the example that you gave about South Africa, I would suggest that if indeed South Africans were to refer to themselves as simply "Africans" then I would also do the same if I were visiting their country. It's their language and their culture, they are entitled to call themselves anything they want. Honestly, I think the arrogance would be mine if I referred to them in any other way. Outside of South Africa I would certainly make the distinction between 'South Africans' and 'Africans'.

To: Francois Goelo who wrote (10142)	7/15/2002 11:14:17 AM
From: Edscharp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19428

Francois, One last point. Keep in mind that the British have been referring to us as "Americans" ever since the late 1700's so there is a historical basis to this as well By the time of the American Revolution there was no nation of Canada. What we today call Canada was a British territory that had been recently acquired by the British from the French during the "French & Indian War" (also called the Seven Year War) in the 1750's (I think). For that matter, there was no Mexico at that point either. What we now call Mexico was a territory of Spain. There is a long established history of us calling ourselves "Americans". It has to do with culture, language and history of our country and was never intended to describe the geographic location of the United States. We became a country before Canada and Mexico ever did. You're trying to change over 300 years of history because the term "American" somehow offends your sensibility or perhaps because you think it is offensive to others. There is not a single American I know of that uses the word to connote an insult to any other nationality. If you or others are construing it that way then I can only conclude that you (or they) have agendas of their own. In case your interested here is a standard definition of the word "American" from the Miriam-Webster Dictionary. m-w.com Main Entry: 1Amer·i·can Pronunciation: &-'mer-&-k&n, -'m&r-, -'mar-, -i-k&n Function: noun Date: 1578 1 : an American Indian of No. America or So. America 2 : a native or inhabitant of No. America or So. America 3 : a citizen of the U.S. 4 : AMERICAN ENGLISH

To: Francois Goelo who wrote (10142)	7/15/2002 12:10:34 PM
From: Edscharp	Respond to of 19428

"Unfortunately, the US of MNA Empire is now on the decline and should soon meet the unenviable fate of all other Empires before it...." This is a very good and very interesting issue; also, a very complex one. It's almost impossible for anyone to predict what our future holds for us. However, if you are predicting a decline like the kind experienced by the Roman Empire I couldn't disagree more. We live in a time of unparalleled technology and communications and there is nothing analogous to the barbarian Goths that brought down the Roman Empire. Even our modern day terrorists don't come even close to this role. Any earnest attempt made by them to bring down this country would be met with a retaliatory effort a hundred-fold greater than the provocation. Believe me. However, it is not totally out of the question that other countries could become ascendant relative to our own. China is sometimes mentioned as a country that could be the next Superpower. This might be convincing to me if China could overcome their own government which still constricts innovation and free enterprise. IMO, it will be many years before that country matures and can rid themselves of the remnants of their communist past (much less their communist present). I appreciate that nothing lasts forever, but it's difficult to perceive at this juncture in history what kind of event could bring about our precipitous downfall. I believe the U.S. and it's allies will be around for many scores of years to come.

To: Francois Goelo who wrote (10142)	7/27/2003 4:14:59 PM
From: StockDung	Respond to of 19428

By: Francois_Goelo CathayOnline Inc (RB: CAOL) « CAOL Message list \| Reply to msg. \| Post new msg. « Older \| Newer » By: Francois_Goelo 26 Jun 1999, 06:02 PM EDT Msg. 3044 of 17637 (This msg. is a reply to 3038 by letgojoe.) Jump to msg. # I have a friend in China scouting Internet Deals whom I help with finding expansion capital and backing the Companies into reporting OTC-BB shells or preparing them for an IPO on NASDAQ when the business has proven itself. He is Chinese, educated in the USA and tells me that there are still a lot of great deals out there. In fact he just completed preliminary work on one, about which we'll soon hear some good things and is working on a couple more. So, if CAOL has the financing and plays its cards well, it could end up being a very valuable Company. BTW, what has it done so far about becoming reporting, since the deadline is October 1999. I'd like to see a written assurance from Management that they are taking care of it in a timely fashion. Regards, F. Goelo + + +

To: Francois Goelo who wrote (10142)	4/22/2006 9:57:20 AM
From: StockDung	Respond to of 19428

State's diploma mill law is 'a way to shut them down' THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Posted on Sat, Apr. 22, 2006 JACKSON - Beginning July 1, Mississippi will have a means of cracking down on unlicensed "diploma mills." The law, signed last month by Gov. Haley Barbour, will allow the Mississippi Commission on College Accreditation to ask chancery judges to order colleges to stop offering unapproved post-secondary academic degrees. "This is a way to shut them down. This is a way to protect the consumer," said Sen. Terry Burton, R-Newton. Some people pay lots of money to enroll in these unaccredited schools for "diplomas that mean nothing," said Burton. University presidents last year expressed alarm about the influx of the unlicensed schools. "The presidents felt that not only were the diploma mills harmful to higher education, but they also perpetuated negative perceptions of Mississippi," according to a 2005 State College Board report. The state accreditation commission lists nine unlicensed Mississippi-based colleges. Among them are Columbus University in Picayune, Cambridge State University in Jackson, Bienville University in Woodville and American University of Hawaii in Clinton and Gulfport. The agency says more of these "universities" could exist. The commission approves all public and private colleges and universities that grant diplomas of graduation or academic degrees. It maintains the list of approved junior and senior colleges and universities located in Mississippi and uses standard accreditation policies to ensure best educational practices. The new law does not apply to private schools accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools or to career-technical colleges regulated by the state Commission of Proprietary Schools and College Registration. State Sen. Charlie Ross, R-Brandon, said the state should not use such "strong coercive power" to control what private colleges offer. "We have enough on our plate with regard to public institutions," Ross said. However, the state already exercises accreditation authority over private schools to ensure they're adhering to good education standards, said Sen. Alice Harden, D-Jackson. The bill "is not designed to shut down people that are doing what they are supposed to be doing," said Harden, chairwoman of the Senate Universities and Colleges Committee.