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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (332445)	12/22/2002 2:07:03 AM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

You hit the nail on the head there X.......I have yet to meet a man, or woman, who can perfectly define perfection;) M

To: epicure who wrote (332445)	12/22/2002 11:22:38 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Come on, a flaw is an imperfection. A flaw in a diamond is a disruption in the flow of the crystal or in coloration a change that is visible. In fact the grading of perfection take into account what it takes to see a flaw. Flaws in diamonds are well defined. Go back to your basic definitions. An generally any person with any semblance of a well rounded education would have been exposed to the fact that universally God is considered perfect. I see a lot weaseling denial here. You stated "It certainly isn't what I think," I think all men are flawed and you do not. Logically that which is not flawed is perfect. Look it up. You stated my opinion is wrong. You are ignorant of what I consider a flaw. I donot assume you are prejudiced. I assume you understand that a millions of things can be defined as flaws and you say none apply. In particular our general discussion is about making judgements. I've allowed you in your reply to demonstrate ignorant prejudice. Yes I have no idea what you think. But if you stupidly say I am wrong in my thinking when you do not know what I am thinking, well you are ignorant and full of prejudice. But if you say specifically what I think is opposite what you think and I know what I think, logically I assume you think the opposite. You declared to soon your prejudice. I was using a very common general case.