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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (11410)	2/9/1999 11:03:00 AM
From: one_less	Respond to of 13994

Here we go...I love it. Pezz: The person who proclaims that he does not care about any other persons "petty little needs," wants to throw out all those intimidations to quiet down people who do. Why? So you can expound about how your vision of the beautiful earth some more, the vision that includes other human beings needs as petty and inconsequential. "self righteous people like yourself" "be passing judgement on others" "when have you been appointed judge of others" "my sanctimonious and self righteous friend" Sounds kind of judgmental on your part, pal. Of course, since we both know that I am not the judge of your soul, my own, or anybody else's, you hope to intimidate me away from defending the truth and arguing for justice. Concepts you detest. Simply because someone is correct about something and the truth is revealing and embarrassing to you does not make that person a judge of your soul and doesn't make that person a righteous pretender. You would have us shy away from what works by such intimidation. What works is the "right behavior." Another term that makes you get all pickle faced. You want that left undefined so you can legislate morality to suit your irresponsible sexual desires. Continually being pointing out that you are the champion of behavior that does not work, has obviously pissed you off. Too bad. That doesn't make me any of labels you used above it only exposes the errors in your philosophy. Pezz's version of the golden rule, "Do everything you can get away with to others and give responsibility to the system." You don't want anyone to be your judge? Ha, you are shallow and transparent. There is nothing wrong with judging flawed and self serving arguments as wrong and detrimental to society. So have a field day with your misapplication of anti-religious bashing. God will judge your soul, but your behavior and idiotic attempts to charm the culture into letting you act like an adolescent with no adult in charge, wont fly with sensible human beings. Grow up.

To: pezz who wrote (11410)	2/9/1999 11:04:00 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Pezz is calling me names, isn't that cute...I love it. Pezz: The person who proclaims that he does not care about any other persons "petty little needs," wants to throw out all those intimidations to quiet down people who do. Why? So you can expound about how your vision of the beautiful earth some more, the vision that includes other human beings needs as petty and inconsequential. "self righteous people like yourself" "be passing judgement on others" "when have you been appointed judge of others" "my sanctimonious and self righteous friend" Sounds kind of judgemental on your part, pal. Of course, since we both know that I am not the judge of your soul, my own, or anybody elses, you hope to intimidate me away from defending the truth and arguing for justice. Concepts you detest. Simply because someone is correct about something and the truth is revealing and embarrassing to others does not make that person a judge and doesn't make that person a rigteous pretender. You would have us shy away from what works by such intimidation. What works is the "right behavior." Another term that makes you get all pickle faced. You want that left undefined so you can legislate morality to suit your irresponsible sexual desires. Continually being pointing out that the champion (pezz) of behavior that does not work, has obviously pissed you off. Too bad. That doesn't make me any of labels you used above it only exposes the errors in your philosophy. Pezz's version of the golden rule, "Do everything you can get away with to others and give responsiblility to the system." You don't want anyone to be your judge? Ha, you are shallow and transparent. There is nothing wrong with judging flawed and self serving arguments as wrong and detrimental to society. So have a field day with your misapplication of anti-religious bashing. God will judge your soul, but your behavior and idiotic attempts to charm the culture into letting you act like an adolescent with no adult in charge, wont fly with sensible human beings. Grow up.

To: pezz who wrote (11410)	2/9/1999 12:15:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

You want to keep moving the target of the discussion, fine. But I'll review just so we have historical perspective. You challenged what you called my "definition of righteousness." I objected and said I don't have one of my own. I just adhere to the standard definitions that have been around since the beginning of time. You bet me that the people representing a group that chooses this definition don't measure up to your group. I said fine, you pick the 1.4 million a year women and the 1.4 million a year men responsible for choosing abortions instead of choosing the responsibility of the well being or the child they reproduced. I will pick an equal number of people attempting to live a righteous life of responsibility for their reproduced children. We can compare the two groups on measures of responsibility for societal ills. In general I want to compare them on, drug abuse, alcoholism, criminal behavior, and sexually transmitted disease. Do you have some measurable traits you want included? Of course the big barrier to this study as with most is financing the budget for the research. There is government funding for such things. Are you interested in starting your PhD or do you have another suggestion? This was your challenge. <<This "bet " is of course impossible to do but since you have such a big mouth on the subject you set the parameters!>> The parameters are set. Your 2.8 million (approximate), matched with my comparable group as defined above. Societal ills, as defined above, with any you can qualify to contribute. This is an easy study. The obvious answers are out there without even doing the study. You, however, want to pretend people calling for standards that support responsibility and righteous living have nothing to base their position on. But you who wants to legislate morals that deny responsibility are saving the Earth. Ok. The ball is back in your court.