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 : Links 'n Things -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (238)	7/6/2004 2:06:12 AM
From: HG	Respond to of 536

If you remember, you stood me up last time in your part of the country !!! :)

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (238)	1/6/2005 12:38:48 PM
From: HG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 536

"Mine would be a fairly simple, straightforward case of an unjustifiable belief, namely that there is no god(s) or such a thing as a soul (whatever the religiously inclined of the right persuasion mean by that word). ... I'm taken with religious folks who argue that you not only can, but should believe without requiring proof. Mine is to not believe without requiring proof. Mind you, it would be perfectly fine with me if there were a proof that there is no god. Some might view this as a potential public health problem, given the number of people who would then run damagingly amok. But it's obvious that there's no shortage of folks running amok thanks to their belief. So that wouldn't be a problem and, all things considered, such a proof would be a relief - many physicists, especially astrophysicists, seem weirdly willing to go on about their communing with god about the Big Bang, but in my world of biologists, the god concept gets mighty infuriating when you spend your time thinking about, say, untreatably aggressive childhood leukemia." Robert Sapolsky Neuroscientist, Stanford University, author, "A Primate's Memoir" ******************************** Edit : Whereas I would question the existance of God as we have defined 'him,' I will not, can not outrightly deny the existance of a power that brought the laws of physics into existance. And it may be an inanimate, all powerful.....thing...or phenomenon. And yes, pondering on the concept is useless in the face of leukemia, but I do have a fatalistic streak in me...after all, does nature really care? I suppose there is a balance somewhere. I just haven't found it. ****************************** "True love. I've spent two decades of my professional life studying human mating. In that time, I've documented phenomena ranging from what men and women desire in a mate to the most diabolical forms of sexual treachery. I've discovered the astonishingly creative ways in which men and women deceive and manipulate each other. I've studied mate poachers, obsessed stalkers, sexual predators and spouse murderers. But throughout this exploration of the dark dimensions of human mating, I've remained unwavering in my belief in true love. While love is common, true love is rare, and I believe that few people are fortunate enough to experience it. The roads of regular love are well traveled and their markers are well understood by many - the mesmerizing attraction, the ideational obsession, the sexual afterglow, profound self-sacrifice and the desire to combine DNA. But true love takes its own course through uncharted territory. It knows no fences, has no barriers or boundaries. It's difficult to define, eludes modern measurement and seems scientifically woolly. But I know true love exists. I just can't prove it." David Buss Psychologist, University of Texas; author, "The Evolution of Desire" ******************************************************* On this subject I plead the fifth, on the grounds that my response would incriminate me....<g> ********************************************************* nytimes.com