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: epicure who wrote (21432)	6/19/2006 2:36:14 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541957

"...Most of the other facts he uses are not in dispute- it is only the eventual effects that are in contention- and we will not know who exaggerated until we reach the future, and that is one of Gore's points in the movie." The only way anyone could determine if he's exaggerating or not is to do nothing different for the next few hundred years, right? To maintain the status quo? The real question here, the one that most seem to avoid, is what should be done if you happen to believe the predictions of disaster. How much national effort and treasure should be applied? How much of the national economy should be sacrificed? How much force or coercion should be applied to developing nations, especially India and China?

To: epicure who wrote (21432)	6/19/2006 2:47:05 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541957

I'm not sure you can really say he exaggerates. I can say it with comfort. If you were to lose a quarter down a sewer while out shopping today and claimed that was a catastrophe, I would say you were exaggerating. It's not that the fact that you lost the quarter is in dispute. It's your characterization of that event that's the exaggeration. That's not the same as losing a quarter and claiming you lost a million dollars. That's an exaggeration of the facts. The other is an exaggerated characterization of the facts.