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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (16238)	11/29/1998 11:40:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Yes. I saw none of this until you mentioned it. I typically do not read Dan's posts very closely, if at all. Oh dear. This doesn't seem to restrain you from somewhat remarkable emissions of scatological erudition on the need to nullify my filth, does it? Based on the principle of the morals you see in nature? I'm glad to see Michael Cummings, he who "needs to understand", has found a kindred spirit in you.

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (16238)	11/30/1998 12:19:00 AM
From: pezz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<<one man's murder is another's justice>> This is a very important point that needs discussion. We have a system of laws. These laws have determined just what is justice and what is murder. It is not open to individual interpretation. I understand that Ish or anyone may of course believe what they wish as long as they don't act on these beliefs. My concern is that some may support [even passively ] one who does act out his/her version of justice. What does this say about their belief in our system of laws? One man's anything is another mans opposite. This has always been the case always will.Each of us must understand that the other believes in good faith that he/she is also right. What is the determining factor? How do we decide what is justice? Well, the Constitution has done a remarkable job given the difficult nature of these questions IMO. We elect our lawmakers. The courts [in theory of course ] protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Doesn't always work quite so simple. If one has a better system lets hear it. You work within the system or you work to change it.Those who would take the law into their own hands because they know they are right are missing the point. They are not attempting to change the system they are raping the system. The world they are proposing is one of anarchy as how can they in good conscious oppose others who also know that they are right[ on any issue ]from behaving in a like manner? Egad! I'm getting almost as long winded as you Johannes ;<]... pez