> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of elena
> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 5:47 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: "Heterosexual Marriage"!
>
>
> Every mail, in every wail it's getting better and better... *sigh*
> >
> > My point was, what benefit is there for millions of ResourcefullCountry
> > citizens to give up their resources and ship them over to DyingCountry's
> > citizens? Life (and human life) will definetly go on, just not in the
> area
> > that had no resources to sustain the amount of life it had been
> sustaining.
> >
> This might be plausible if the citizens of the Resorcefull (sic!) country
> were hermetically (not to be confused with hermeneutically) isolated, and
> their wellbeing depended only and solely on their own resources. Which
> doesn't seem to be the case now.
> Certainly, Maxwell's daemon can be considered (er, by a long stretch) part
> of the nature, but the IMF, WB, the EU etc. as its minions are most
> "definetly" (sic!) not.
> Try re-reading the Tempest before it's Disneyfied...
>
Allow me to adjust my statement (since it did imply a country could be self-sufficient). I'm not saying wellbeing (sic!) is dependent solely on internal devices. Certainly if they were dependent on a foreign land (and therefore part of their support structure) then it is in their best interest to provide aid in times of need. For instance, an argument is made to provide aid to countries who are cutting down rain-forests. In this situation, they are dying of starvation, they cut down rain-forest to provide agriculture and industry, rain-forest depletion reduces world-wide oxygen levels, we need oxygen, we save them from starvation.
My argument can be made on both a macro-level (the demise of an economy or civilization that is not a symbiont) all the way down to a micro-level (the demise of a drug abuser who is not a symbiont). When there is no inherent benefit, why should they be saved? In both cases, they become parasitic and their life or death is irrelevant (though one may argue this point, for argument lets say their demise has no effect save for remorse). I could even make a case (probably a pretty strong one) that if they live and grow strong that they may become a significant threat.
Also, I have never read "the Tempest" (sic!). You know you should never assume, because you know where that gets you. However, if you recommend it, I will put it on my reading list.
============================== From: http://cctc2.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/bracket.htm
Also within quotations, you could enclose [sic] within
>>>>>>>brackets<<<<<<<< to show that misspelled words or inappropriately
used words are not your typos or blunders but are part of an accurately
rendered quotation:
Reporters found three mispelings [sic] in the report.
(It is bad manners, however, to use this device to show that another writer is a lousy speller or otherwise unlettered.)