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: Neocon who wrote (12684)	5/26/1999 4:31:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

"I cannot afford to be uninterested in the source, because I have to perform a kind of triage, and decide what is more or less likely to reward my patience..." I suspected this to be your reasoning. When presented in this manner, and based on what I know of you, I agree. At least for you. For myself, I not only don't feel obliged to study Blavatsky because others swear by her, I don't feel obliged to study Hegel because you swear by him. Or to not study Chomskey (I thought it was Chomsky) because you think he's a propagandist. (If these aren't appropriate examples, feel free to substitute names which are). This in spite of the fact that I recognize and respect your intellect. I don't pick and choose my input based on anything other than what intrigues me at the moment or what happens to cross my path. I've never been particularly interested in what other people think regardless of who they are except as it applies to whatever it is that I'm currently thinking about. By definition, whatever anyone else thinks has already been thought, and I'm more interested in thinking of things that others haven't already thought of. Generally I use the thoughts of others, as I did with the Sagan analogy, as a jumping off point for a thought of my own. I recognize that the "match" analogy is an unnecessarily alarmist, not to mention inaccurate, depiction of the situation. I simply used it because it was a convenient lead-in for my own statement that it's time to get our asses out of the gasoline. My point had absolutely nothing to do with Sagan and could have been expressed any number of ways. I chose that one because it happened to pop into my head and seemed both appropriate and alliterative. But I've already disenfranchised myself enough around here and I really don't want to continue arguing this. I feel that we simply approach the same basic goal from different directions. It's just that I really couldn't care less who you refer to in your writing; I'm only interested in whether you make sense or not. I guess that just leads me to expect the same from you despite my recognition that we are different sorts of thinkers. To use an artistic analogy-- it seems that you think more in the way that, let's say, Rembrandt, or maybe more accurately Frederic Church, painted. My own goal is to think the way that Van Gogh painted, but I think that so far I've only made it as far as, say, Monet. FWIW, -BLT