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 : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (5102)	2/13/2003 3:44:31 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

"Shall we continue the abundance until he has nuclear ICBMs? Which city would you like taken out first- -London, Ottawa, or Washington?" Here you go again with your non sequiturs. Does an abundance of caution entail that we take the risk of having London or Ottawa or Washington taken out? THAT would be an ABSENCE of caution. "They should be told to either get with the program or get out of NATO." That may be so. It has nothing to do with what I have been saying to you, though. "If you are not in favor of bribery, why are you acting in the interests of the bribees?" Saying I support the open dialogue of the United Nations in discusing these issues is not acting in the interests of the "bribees". I have not even discussed my opinions on those issues. You are charging around in your own playground. "Shall we wait until the tanks roll across the equivalent of the Polish border again?" I haven't been discussing my opinions about these matters nor have I indicated the desire to discuss such matters at this time. I was discussing with you the process of civilized consensus building, where objections are addressed and overcome to the satisfaction of reasonable people. "So you preferred the Cold War with a continuing threat of nuclear annihilation?" I did not say anything about the cold war. I said that: "when there is a huge imbalance of power, people ought to be extremely careful it does not get out of hand." "Well, when you figure out a way where war will only take guilty lives, be sure to tell the rest of us quickly." SIGH...I don't know of a way where war will only take GUILTY lives. If that were the case there would be no need for me or anyone else to exercise or counsel prudence in war. We could all be as reckless as all Hell without any concern. But yes, Lazarus...I will be sure to tell you if I discover a way. :-) "Just what alternative do you propose?" I wasn't talking about an alternative to war. "Prudence, my a$$. You want appeasement forever. Except you're not going to get forever regardless of how you play it." That is again a non sequitur, and a ridiculous comment to boot. You have no idea what I want; I have not said. I may want war far more than you do. What I was talking about to you was my support of consensus building and the willingness to dialogue, share information, and meet objections for the common purposes of civilization and the inquiries of reasonable people. I did not say war was unreasonable, and I said nothing about the specific merits of this issue. I doubt I will keep responding to red herrings and your willful inabilty to follow my simple discussion about the values of prudence and dialogue in conducting world affairs. Your continued pretenses that I have said ANYTHING to indicate a disregard for American interests or sensitivities are becoming annoying and wasteful of my time.