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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: X Y Zebra who wrote (2024)	7/21/2005 12:48:41 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 540724

we are at war.... therefore.... no more talk, no more definitions... that's all.... It appears to me that you are making an unsupported inference. We have a variety of opinions here about this subject. I am attempting to listen to each of them, reconcile them if I can, isolate the salient variables if I can't, and see if the some shared understanding is possible. This is a message board. There are forty some of us here. We do not make public policy. We are not on the critical path to achieving your objective. What we do or say here in no way hinders the killing of terrorists that you're so keen on. That is going on elsewhere even as we here hash over this question. I do not want to delay your objective while we here analyze our differences. Nothing I've said has suggested that I would want to. I've even agreed with you that we should kill as many as we can. So why do you perceive me as some kind of obstacle or opposition? I have tentatively explained that as black-and-white thinking of the fer-me-or-agin-me variety--if I'm talking about definitions, ergo I must be against killing terrorists. But that doesn't necessarily follow. Those events can and do occur concurrently and I encourage them to do so. If I am mistaken in my explanation, please offer an alternative. i did not say i do not want to understand them.... i just want to kill them before they kill me... therefore, it would pay me to learn about their tactics, but i have no interesting understanding them at all.. Huh? You didn't say you don't want to understand them yet you have no interest in understanding them? Is that not a contradiction? I don't particularly want to get into semantics because that obviously irritates you, but what is the difference between "not wanting to" and "having no interest in"? Do you or don't you want to understand them? And if not, how is that a good idea? such does not make me ignorant. Of course it does. When you don't know something, you are ignorant of it. That's pretty plain English. If you choose to not understand them, you choose to be ignorant of at least some aspects of them. Which is your prerogative, of course, but your objecting when I take note of said intentional ignorance doesn't play.