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 : Neocon's Seminar Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (709)	4/29/2003 5:05:11 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1112

It depends on the level of tension. If "somethings got to give", I suppose that one might anticipate the breaking point with a military challenge, but the sources of tension must be commensurate with the remedy.........

To: one_less who wrote (709)	5/5/2003 12:44:49 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 1112

In looking back I just realized that I have changed my focus here. On the one hand I am addressing tensions rising toward the crux of an arguement. But, It appears that I was refering to something else when I first mentioned the breaking point. So let me add that back in. The breaking point that I was first refering to was a point at which one or both sides can no longer sustain their resistance to the other side without colapsing or blowing up or something. If you percieve such a point (as I think Bush did) do you agress? first strike? What? and what are the foundational principals that justify it?