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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (69612)	5/3/2018 11:00:55 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 356329

" I have no desire to continue arguing with someone who can't comprehend that." He can, but doesn't want to.

To: neolib who wrote (69612)	5/3/2018 12:11:09 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 356329

No I comprehend that and have stated so myself, giving examples. It just isn't relevant to the point I was making. Maybe in your opinion its an unimportant and uninteresting point, and you have some other much better point, but even if so "a single entity can engage in different activities that are subject to different accounting and rules" isn't relevant to my point. If I say I mix chemicals X,Y, and Z in these proportions under these conditions, I get a new chemical A You might look at it at a lower level and try to describe how different bonds are formed, or talk about the fundamental physical forces behind all of it. Someone else might look at it at a higher level and say "chemical A is an illegal narcotic, so if you mix X,Y, and Z you've committed a crime". Points at all those levels can be correct at the same time. Bringing up a lower or higher level than the original point is bringing up a new question, whether or not the level that you want to look at is the most important level for this case.