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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (11866)	11/25/2006 5:39:57 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219953

hello mary, to those who have met me in person including some on this thread, and those who know me, i am one of the most optimistic and sun shiny persons known so, on that old score, i am not concerned as to 'ultimately', it will not be long, at least not long enough to matter, and in any case, the degree of burn is a non-linear function of elapsed time to burning event i am optimistic enough to know that we will survive the burn, but some better off than others, as always As to <<It is pointless to plan for failure>> ... each to his own, but, as a matter of altruism, as opposed to ... well, best left unsaid, I figure it is good to warn, as in being responsible About <<Mankind may not survive the systemic cosmic collapse>> ... I figure we will. But regarding <<But, it is pointless to give up>> ... who is giving up? You? You really must better connect cause and effect, do and don'ts, true and false, was and will be, along with is, and astute vs foolish, maybe and of course, .. etc

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (11866)	11/26/2006 6:30:48 PM
From: pogohere	Respond to of 219953

1."Ultimately, we all die." 2."The sun will burn out." 3."Our universe will collapse and our galaxy will sink into some black hole." #1. No doubt. #2. Not very likely in any time frame that is relevant. The US$ will collapse first. #3. No science on this. All guesses based on speculations built on clues. Fails the falsefiability test. Currently, no possible way to reconcile quantum field theory with general relativity. Suggest you check out Paul LaViolette and his work on subquantum kinetics. Consensus "science" on these subjects is highly political. That means somebody has a financial/power interest in the result, and not an interest in the truth. "It ain't what you know that gets you. It's what you know that ain't so." Josh Billings