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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (21548)	6/23/2003 4:19:15 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

I didn't originally ask the question but I would think the criteria and the weight given to them would be different for each person. If someone asks you is X a good thing then it would mean is X a good thing in your opinion, using your criteria for what a "good thing" is. You're absolutely correct, but if you don't establish a common reference point of what constitutes "good" then it becomes pointless to answer the question. Is globalization good or bad, yes or no? Is a pretty stupid question without any criteria. But looking beyond the unspecified criteria. It's not a lot different than asking...Is weather good or bad, yes or no? What kind of weather are we talking about...typically, San Diego weather is good. Typically, north pole weather is not good. Hurricanes are not considered good weather. Rain is good...to a limit. If you have so much rain that there is widespread flooding, this is not good. Not enough rain has it's disadvantages. Now some people, there's no need to mention Lazarus by name, seem to think that if they ask stupid questions they might appear to be clever. They seem to think that there is a binary answer for any question. This is not necessarily the case. Are we better off in 2003 then we were in 1900, what are the criteria? It might be true that we have more personal time in 2003 than in 1900. So what? The average work week generally declined the first half of the last century. In the last half, it generally rose. If you're about 50 years of age, it's likely that you are working more hours than your father did and your children will work more hours than you do. Though you probably are working less than your great-grandfather did. What's more important? To data mine and pick 1900 and 2003 and completely ignore the trends throughout 100 years or to look at the entire trend over the last 100 years? jttmab