Re: Poverty a subject
Posted by Pasti on Jan 30, 2004 at 05:02
(216.209.73.5)
Re: Poverty a subject (Kelly)
I am very sorry Kelly, but it was no condescension or arrogance intended from my part. I only offered you the possibility to understand what Amaranth said in a different light, had you be willing to do so.
But you are welcome anyway. :-)
It is good that you have remained idealistic at 42,and that life has been good to you.However, this does not mean that "bitter and hollow" grumps like myself are necessarily wrong, just because they are "bitter and hollow".
And I can only hole that you are joking when you refer to judging change based on news browsing.There are indeed many amazing things that have happened in the last 20 years,but very few qualify as major changes, in the real sense of the word. Try to remember that for example, as much as cancer is concerned,things are no better in terms of a cure than they were when Marie Curie invented the Ra-therapy, almost 100 years ago.
As much as nanotechnology goes,and since you mentioned it,unfortunately for you,I worked directly in the field for more than 6 years, and I know quite in detail the difference between the real thing and the spin in the media. And again,in this case,what it seems is not what it is. At least for the time being,and in spite of the money DOE spent on this,nanotech still hasn't paid off,in terms of what could be called a change.And it won't, at least in the very near future.Just because you have access to that scale, which is nice to say the least, doesn't mean too much in terms of change.But you are right, in the future it might.
I hope I have managed again to "entertain" you again :-)
Re: Poverty a subject Kelly 30/1 15:36
(10)
Re: Poverty a subject Kelly 31/1 01:11
(3)