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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (266363)	12/28/2005 11:50:01 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1587936

"I'm saying that every wetlands is valuable as opposed to your statement that some are more valuable than others." It depends on your touchstone. Are you talking ecologically? If so, then all wetlands tend to be equal, water is a valuable ecological commodity. Are you talking economically? Then, that depends. Location and function is very important. Are you talking politically? Then location, the political cycle and local politics are much more important. If the wetland is in a swing state, then the local attitude is more important than anything else. Which is why Charlie was more important than Katrina or Rita...

To: tejek who wrote (266363)	12/29/2005 4:20:03 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1587936

Who said wetlands are not important? No one, which was precisely my point. Your response implies that I said such a thing. I said that some areas defined as wetlands are more valuable then others. You responded saying that they are important. Your response would only be relevant to my statement if I said they where not important. I'm saying that every wetlands is valuable as opposed to your statement that some are more valuable than others. Those two statements aren't in opposition to each other. Tim