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: Maurice Winn who wrote (58431)	1/7/2005 7:10:18 AM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

my goodness, you are a suspicious type, over such a simple question :0) <<Is that a trick question?>> ... how can it be a trick question? <<No multi-choice answers?>> ... no, you have total freedom in the way you wish to answer the question, or to decline the invitation to answer. <<But maybe I missed the point>> ... whatever do you mean. I didn't know the two events were connected. Gad, a simple question out of curiosity, and all those convolutions. <<Would you please define "capital G type"?>> ... Ok, let us dispense with the capital letters then. <<I don't really want to start into such a discussion without having some definitions pretty clear>> ... definition is as you wish, whatever you wish, which simply constitutes a part of the aggregate answer. Isn't that just fair? <<My experience ... >>> ... so then you must have an answer ready? <<After brian h's heartfelt expressions and your reply>> ... you mean my heartfelt response? <<I thought ... >> ... you thought wrong. <<Then you come out with the G question? What gives?>> ... what twisted mind would think the two thread of conversations are related? <<Please excuse me answering a simple question with several questions>> ... OK. and I trust I answered all your questions in some fashion. <<and avoiding the binary choice you seemed to offer>> ... you interpreted wrongly. <<In the way people commonly describe their belief in supernatural spooks>> ... is that your definition of god or God? <<[a kind of ethereal Santa>> ... or is this? <<the answer is no>> ... ah, the answer, that was simple enough. <<But perhaps you were looking for something more?>> ... do you have more? Chugs, Jay