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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (485698)	6/4/2009 1:54:42 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574118

If Peter related what he saw and heard to Mark, that isn't distant hearsay. Based on your description most of history and even everything you read in the press is distant hearsay. Yesterday the Court of Appeals agreed to hear a case brought by the St of IN. Of course, since none of us was in the courtroom and personally heard the decision we're only relying on distant hearsay that it actually happened, in your view that is. We only have copies of copies of almost all ancient manuscripts. The oldest manuscript of the OT for example only goes back a little over 1000 years. More dilution of the truth.</ik> So you can conclude we don't need to bother teaching history cause know one knows what really happened in the past. There may never h/b any Mongol empire. We have no original manuscript written by Genghis Khan so we should assume he and his empire didn't exist. there were no communication devises. Even paper hadn't been invented then....they were writing on parchment. Well there was writing and paper vs parchment doesn't really make any difference.