That doesn't really have anything to do with my point, and I guess it
makes some sense. If the risks are actually the "greatest" risks, then
that by definition means that there are many more that fail at those
risks, compared to those few where that great risk by chance swings in
their favor. The lower the risk, obviously the more succeed with it, tho
at lower reward.
By the very fact that it is the "greatest" risk, it is an intangeable,
including luck, right place right time, how you look, and who you know
that will play far more importance than how hard you work. Hard work is
an easy choice to make, therefore, in the logic you point out, it is the
safest, lowest "risk", contibuting the lower part of the rewards.
If you prefer, you can end this thread, now..:)
Larry
NSURIT@xxxxxxx wrote:
> In a message dated 6/28/02 3:33:57 PM Central Daylight Time,
> halpert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>
>
>> the rule is that how hard someone works does NOT directly connect to
>> how
>> successful they are.
>
> I can't help myself, it must be the devil making me respond or jump
> into this thread. I had hoped it might just go away. So here goes my
> 2 cents worth, which will probably not change any of the unbelievers
> into believers or even have them for a brief moment seriously ponder
> the thought. So here goes . . . It has been my experience in life,
> at least is this representative democracy, that those who take the
> greatest risks tend to reap the greatest rewards. Those who tend to
> take the safest path tend to reap the least reward. IMHO opinion this
> concept applies to many different areas of life, such as employment,
> business, investments and yes, even relationships. This may have been
> a little more than my 2 cents worth. Bill Barber
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|