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 : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: grusum who wrote (13697)	3/28/2009 5:43:36 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24758

g: yes, and a much more general one that doesn't require you to harm anyone to get it (at least here in the states). no matter how badly you need something, if you have to harm someone to get it, it is a greedy act. This isn't as easy to determine as you might think. For many years, I bought and ate grapes with little or no sense that I was harming anyone by doing so but later in life someone informed me that the way that grapes were grown did considerable harm to the individuals who grew and harvested them. Over the years, there are very few things left in modern society where someone hasn't attempted to demonstrate that somewhere someone may be harmed by my using them including but not limited to the very computer that I'm now writing this on! g: anyone that would ask such a question doesn't deserve an answer. Isn't this the basic question that is being asked by the public and the Congress as they question the AIG bonuses? What could they possibly have done to "deserve" those bonus payments. This is the public definition of greed, expectation of getting something in excess of what you "deserve". Who determines who deserves what, who determines who it is that deserves to be the one who determines who deserves what!? Better to leave those kinds of questions to religion. They have no place in government or in the courts.