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 Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (3756)	1/15/2003 1:07:26 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Fine, we will make a treaty with Nevada that offers instant residency from Colorado citizens. We will keep our wheat and have no use for your tainted peaches anyway.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (3756)	1/16/2003 7:22:32 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

So, you would object to having people who support your side of this argument moving to a community near you? I feel just fine about the people supporting my side of this argument moving to a community near me. I knew a guy a few years ago who wanted his daughter to go to a private religious school. He presented quite an argument to the school board who did not want his business. He did not believe in praying to God. His kids were unruly and disrespectful and generally objected to the religious aspects of the education. The board members pointed out that the only reason the school has the climate it does is because of the religious aspects of the education offered. After a lengthy argument over the whole thing the Chairman of the Board asked him why, since he did not believe in the things the school was designed to teach would he want his kid to go there. He answered that he wanted her to go there because they had good values and there would be no risk of his kid being involved in drugs, illicit sex, or senseless violence. I saw it in the reverse. Although it was a goal of the school to reduce the risk of such things, by admitting his kid and others like her the likelyhood of those things was increased. Bottom line, if you want to advocate for the people's right to behave such and so, then you should take responsibility for supporting them in that life style. States that condone a particular attitude, behavior, or life style should happily accommodate those lifestyles and gaurd themselves against lifestyles that are harmful to their way of life. I don't understand a perspective where you insist people should be allowed to behave such and so in my neighborhood but would gaurd against having them move to your neighborhood.