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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (89392)	11/23/2004 11:53:46 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I think that's eminently reasonable and particularly like the way you said this: any death is a terrible and tragic loss, and if deer birth control eliminates any unnecessary loss of life, I'm for it. however! I take issue with the "cruising for antiques" thing! No, I'm kidding. I like doing that though. It's a harmless and inexpensive time-waster for me and I've found some nice treasures to pass along to my children...

To: epicure who wrote (89392)	11/23/2004 12:10:01 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Antique hunting preserves the value of our history, and provides a link between us and our ancestors. That's a socially redeeming value, don't you think? Let's turn this around. What is YOUR favorite activity? Unless it harms you (like snorting cocaine) or somebody else (like spraying graffiti on public buildings) then BY DEFINITION it has socially redeeming value. Let's say I object to professional basketball because some outlaws got into a brawl. Does that mean basketball has no socially redeeming value? Does it mean I should try to eradicate professional sports because I think they are a total waste of time? No. I have a right to stay away. That's all. That's what I do. People who object to hunting should do likewise. cruising antique shops for bargains- I can see it might be fun for some, but socially redeeming? Well, no.