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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oblomov who wrote (29229)	2/26/2003 12:59:03 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 74559

<<Let me restate what I said, then. You engaged in a semantic trope that is a non sequiter, and that does not help your argument.>> I don't think there is semantics involved at all... I stated clearly that my understanding of 'courageous' is the exact opposite of yours: <Also, our media culture promotes the idea that everyday acts or duties can be somehow heroic or courageous:> If that's what media 'says' [and I don't think it does in general at all, but I think you're talking about the way in which specific human interest pieces portray normal every day people as courageous when you don't think they are] then I think it is CORRECT. Do you see... I think courageousness CAN be displayed any day by anyone. In fact, the whole metaphore of slaying dragons is the dragon 'within'... the courage to fight your fears... to do what is right day in and day out. I think Twain is worth repeating but all the others quotes fit as well: * Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear - not absence of fear ~Mark Twain * * To see what is right, and not to do it, is want of courage. ~Confucius <<This doesn't make you wrong or make you a bad person, nor does it diminish my personal respect for you.>> Right, it's only words. It's JMHO. <<I have no problem with you liking the speech, and I would say it was not bad as speeches go. Byrd has very strong rhetorical skills.> No, I don't mean that... I don't know beans about the verbal structure of speech writting or rhetoric. I liked what was said, and the fact that it WAS said. OTOH, I don't know Byrd or his motivations. <<But rather than being an essential, 'courageous' document for the ages, I put it in the same class of political ephemera as filibusters>> This gets at the essence of my point... I don't think it has to be anything 'for the ages' to be courageous. It is certainly a topic many are avoiding for some reson. I have no reason to believe he gave the speech for any reason other than it is his true belief, straight from the heart. But I dont know R. Byrd. DAK