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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : CCEE Breaking Out -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Parker Benchley who wrote (7273)	10/23/1997 12:29:00 PM
From: Steven R. Bergman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12454

George, I realize that my reticence to engage Rick may be perceived as supersensitivity. Nah. My undergraduate degree is in philosophy. I will argue with anyone about anything I deem worth discussing for hours. It's a game. But there's a catch. I do not argue to argue, but to convince the other of the validity of my position. As James Carse said in his book Finite and Infinite Games (and I paraphrase): The essence of a finite game is not just that there are rules, but that there are criteria that decide who has won the game. If a game cannot be won (or lost), it cannot be played as a game. We know who won the Great War, but who won the French Revolution? Most players will not knowingly participate in a game if they cannot tell if or when anyone has won, or if for some reason, no one can win, but also cannot definitely lose. One cannot win or lose when the object of the game is to keep the game in play. This is an infinite game, one in which the object of the game is to continually rediscover and reinvent the rules. However, for such a game to be valid, the participants must realize that it is an infinite game they are playing. When only one person is playing an infinite game, it ceases to become a game at all. And that is why I do not choose to engage Rick. Steve