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: Ilaine who wrote (12922)	12/24/2006 2:13:59 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 220082

That bloke dressed in orange has a strong persuasive power. In fact we westerners are easy prey for the Asians of that area as many guys, sucked bone dry by a Thai or Indonesian lady, can attest. The bloke dressed in Orange may be as persuasive to a western female as the young lady is for the western male. It is all psychological.

To: Ilaine who wrote (12922)	12/24/2006 2:23:13 AM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 220082

<<The truth of the matter is that Tibet was, and will be, a sovereign nation>> ... source? <<fantasy>> or real? <<For that matter, Taiwan is a sovereign nation, as well>> ... yes, its official name is The Republic of China, and is in state of civil war with the People's Republic of China, and the civil war will be resolved as do all civil wars, civil or harsh. <<Hong Kong, on the other hand, was a colony of the British empire, and is now part of the PRC>> ... strange state of is, as a separately recognized customs and immigration territory per un. you do believe in the judgement of the un, do you not? <<And you're a subject of the PRC>> ... odd, that's not what the paper work says. Do you know something I do not? <<I could say "lacky" but that would be inflammatory>> ... I do not flame easy, if at all. Attempts at insults are most unbecoming, especially if off mark, and no one cares. <<And it's the holidays, so we're being polite, aren't we?>> ... do not be on my account. I take what comes, without concern, and liking it. I like the energy. Now, as we were talking about israel and palestine, and then, for what ever reason, you changed the subject, perhaps when you ran dry with reason, given that there were preciously little substance to your 1947s and palestine not fighting for territory. Perhaps by your reasoning, no one ever fights for territory. Everyone just fights for the heck of it. Oops ... <<Hong Kong ... I guess the Chinese are willing to practice a little global domination now and then, at least towards an island you can reach by railroad>> ... by your book, recovery of ex-territory is the practice of global domination, all of a sudden, but I am guessing only in the case of China, but not in the case in Palestine / Israel ... or ... eh ... how does it work ... need UN sanctioning ... no, that is not it, as UN certainly sanctioned the handover of HK ... what were your precious points?

To: Ilaine who wrote (12922)	12/25/2006 8:15:54 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 220082

Giggle: <Tibet is not a nation, and never was, and never will be, but Hong Kong is now, was in the beginning, and always will be? > TJ is tendentious. In China, words are something to toss around in the breeze with tenuous connection to reality and used mainly to acquire OPM, rather than to define reality and rules for the purpose of establishing and protecting personal and property rights. Which is not to say China has a monopoly in that regard as it's a worldwide hobby, achieved to a greater or lesser extent. It's hilarious being in Beijing and talking to people and hearing how little words have any bearing on reality. I do NOT believe China is going to be anything more than a cheap workshop without a very major cultural shift, which I doubt is a possibility. GDP growth up to a certain level will be rapid, just as a confused layabout who decides to start working can become very well off relatively. But they can't aspire to achieve more than those for whom they work, numbers being irrelevant - even a billion Chinese couldn't outdo one Albert Einstein. It was an excellent move to accept 16,000 Jews into Shanghai, albeit they weren't "accepted" so much as able to escape there as a result of British administrative visa-free process. But of course they left again when Mao decided to upgrade the place. "For whom they work" is NOT the USA, so much as the creative people who are mostly found in the USA. The average American has an undue sense of entitlement, for example whining about outsourcing of their over-paid jobs to India and China, as though the Americans OWN the jobs, with their employers obliged to employ them. Mqurice