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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: roto who wrote (40827)	5/23/2007 2:19:07 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 78421

Well we cannot use more resources than we have people to use them, so it has to be self limiting and then we are into more and more scrap.. etc.. (so we had better not build anything too permanent like the soviets who built their plants with titanium piping that never wore out or corroded. They just made it large enough that when they redesigned they just laid more piping on top and changed the circuitry..) no scrap, gotta keep mining... I dunno, the idea that mining just keeps encroaching on civilization.. you really see that happening? I mean if you took every mine in the world ever mined you could probably put them in Connecticut and have room left over to park all the Chevrolets ever made.. but take the area we have paved over for valet parking at hotels alone and you would need several small foreign countries and they would sink under the weight of all that tarmac and become submarine states ... an immediate threat requiring pre-emptive nuclear attack. statistics courtesy of I-Just-Made-That-Up Polling and Research Corporation. But 10,000 open pit mines 1 mile by 1/2 mile are only collectively 5,000 square miles and Connecticut is 5,500 square miles. OK, you would have to park the chevs in New Jersey, they probably are mostly there anyway. EC<:-}

To: roto who wrote (40827)	5/23/2007 2:36:17 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78421

The responsibility is obviously our great xxxx grandparents, and since they screwed up the installed base, we are not responsible for its screwed up continuation. And anyway we can ignore our bratty children as they are all drug addicts or religious nuts, just as we trained them or drove them to it, or perhaps its genetic.. but anyway if we gave them any power they would only take six seconds to become herd corrupted and it would start all over again.. The problems are women and money. If we get rid of both of them, we would have no reason to climb to the top of the ant hill. Perhaps Skinner had it right. Put everyone in plastic boxes and whack their peepee if the lights go on when we show them filthy pictures of fed reserve notes. When they reach for something we whack them again.. kill ambition and you kill the drive to compete, screw the other guy... etc.. then the world will be a better place.. tigers will stop eating lambs. You know what gung ho means? "Gung ye ho", a Chinese military term meaning group co-operation to get a task done that one cannot do. A marine colonel saw that and reorganized the marines to be 'gung ho' and work together. Have to kill that too. A disorganized slothful group of people won't pollute or consume too much. We have to stay in our caves and be nice. All these moon shots and great things we must strive for. We must learn to be good turtles and migrate nicely with other species. Simple and more animalistic is better. I figure the problem is really not all the issues we are led to believe are hot buttons, but basic things we will not be able to do anything about, overpopulation.. and having governments. If anyone wants to be a leader, he should be killed. All conflict has come from great leaders, who are all psychopaths. The most peaceful era of England's history was when they had no king, and no government. Yes anarchy was good. Peace reigned. Do we need progress? Does it lessen suffering etc.. etc.. no evidence that primitives are measurably worse off than we.. overall.. EC<:-}