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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (84229)	7/26/2007 10:21:03 PM
From: ScatterShot	Respond to of 110194

I follow this thread regularly. I like shades. He didn't deserve the ban.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (84229)	7/26/2007 10:26:35 PM
From: orkrious	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

I agree, shades attacks no one personally. Why ban him? after what shades said to me in a PM, he's gone from this thread forever. if he doesn't want to start his own thread, someone can start one for him. let's please end the shades discussion now.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (84229)	7/27/2007 3:11:54 PM
From: bbordi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

I found Shades references to "Coconut" highly distasteful. I think the problem is more the noise factor than the actual "offensiveness" but the fact is the guy has to post incessantly, and it dilutes the thread. I have lurked here for years, and many of the best contributors have become less active over the years. Someone needs to draw a line, or just go over to VOY and listen to Mozel blaming everything on the Jews, and the rest of the crew competing for the perfect portrayal of paranoid existential despair. There should be a place for it, because many people develop relationships on these boards that are open-ended. somebody start a thread, "society, ethics, economics, whatever" But I am supportive of a little bit of policing on this thread. I come her for focused discussion, and links to relevant articles. Now I will go OT, however I won't do it 5x a day, or call people hypocrtitical because they don't by gold on Credit Cards. In memory of shades... OT: I don't like Ayn Rand or the dogma of "rational individualism" Why is it rational to perceive my being as fundamentally singular?, decontextualized from my species-being? great men usually act as stewards for the coming generations; how rational is that?) i thought relationships were the most important part of human life. why not "i am part of, therefore i am" i don't perceive my existence as singular, nor do i believe my fundamental values can be understood in relation to exchange, they require understanding of "having in common." As Michael Stipe says "buy the sky and sell the sky." In the end the libertarianism of wealthy folks is usually a fantastic premise serving to justify themselves to themselves (as any morality usually is) Personal private property works to distribute power in direct correlation to the breadth of it's distribution. The tendency of wealth-driven persons to accumulate and ally has always driven the emergence of tyrannical structures, distinguished from government in certain ways, yet very similar. Making power private is the fantasy of the wealthy man, because he perceives his power to be offset by the government, and himself as a perfect leige. As Nietzsche noticed, the weak will always have power over the strong, and to think that the state will be dismantled without that function being replaced is also simple fantasy. My 2 cents.