Text 21311, 115 rader
Skriven 2006-01-07 16:08:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av PETER KNAPPER
Ärende: Lack of Gratitude
=========================
-=> Quoting Peter Knapper to Frank Scheidt <=-

 PK> So you are saying that it is impossible to brainwash people because
 PK> they would all know it was happening and that its possible to resist
 PK> powerful drugs.  
 
 FS> I find it somewhat interesting -- your continued references to 
 FS> "brain-washing".  I wonder what your point is? 

 PK> My point is very simple, I am trying to find out why your comments are
 PK> so one sided. I figure there must be something driving you that
 PK> "forces" you to make comments like that, as if there is only one
 PK> possible solution to the puzzle.  The reality is that there are always
 PK> 2 sides to every coin the same as there are 2 sides to every story. I a
 PK> simply trying to find what you have done with side 2, because without
 PK> that side visible all we can see is a very thin slice of the cake.

We're moving from "coin" to "cake" now?  I've explained why the 
terrorists bombed the WTC many times, but you'll not accept that.  
Maybe it's too simple ... they did it because they weren't in 
their right minds -- some call that insane! 
 
 FS> It's obvious that *my* mind is very clear ... so?

 PK> What is obvious to some may not be at all obvious to others. Consider
 PK> my reply above as an example.
 
I have.  And that reinforces my beliefs.

 PK> So are you saying that you have never heard of the term "one-eyed"  
 PK> before? 
 
 FS> Sure I've heard the term.  There's a card game in which 
 FS> "One-eyed Jacks" have some special value ... but I don't see how 
 FS> that is involved here.

 PK> Ok, it seems there is another context for the statement that you may
 PK> not be aware of. A person who continuously ignores the other side of
 PK> the coin, is an example of a "one-eyed" person. My appologies if you
 PK> took it to mean something personal.

I have *never* simply ignored the "other side of the coin".  I've 
mentioned many times why those terrorists murdered the WTC 
people.  However you will not accept it. 
 
 FS> Sometimes your questions are so absurd they *demand* no direct 
 FS> answer.
 
 PK> Then if you do not wish to seek clarification of the question, leave 
 PK> it alone rather than provide some vague response that suggests that you 
 PK> really do HAVE an opinion on the matter.
 
 FS> Since I don't do that, what's your point? 

 PK> That perhaps you need to learn when to leave things alone and simply
 PK> go on to the next question, the same as I have done throughout our
 PK> messaging of late. 

I don't give vague responses however you *do* have a point -- 
that I merely leave your repetitious questions alone ...
 
 FS> I don't think you understand the enormity of the value of having 
 FS> Iraq be a democracy instead of a dictatorship.  
 
 PK> Frank, you should NEVER admit to these things, probably without
 PK> realising it you have just stated that the SOLE reason for invading
 PK> Iraq was to provide a commercial advantge to the USA. One of the
 PK> founding principles of Democracy is the belief that there should be
 PK> open business opportunities to the commercial environment, and
 PK> according to what you have just said above, that 
 PK> is the sole reason for the USA to "rescue" Iraq. 
 FS>  
 FS> I've made no such admission.  *Again* you are trying to put words 
 FS> into my mouth then criticizing those very words.  

 PK> Your sentence above suggests (to me at least) that the USA wanted to
 PK> change a nation from one form of government (dictatorship) to another
 PK> (democracy), and it did that by invading and putting into place its own
 PK> preferred form of government (the USA "elected" the initial council),
 PK> using its own methods.  

Haven't you *heard*?  The Iraqis recent held a popular election!  
Really!!!!

 PK> You can call that liberation, freeing, or removal of a dictator, but
 PK> what ever way you view it, it is direct subversion of another country
 PK> by the USA. The moment the USA installed its own commercial interests
 PK> into Iraq to "help" them get on their feet again, it was clear that the
 PK> USA wanted to control the financial assets (basically Oil) of Iraq.

 PK> Had the USA operated under the "umbrella" of the UN along with other
 PK> nations then none of this could have been even hinted as being purely
 PK> for USA benefit. As it happened, that is how things have ended up where
 PK> they are now. 
 
And things are steadily improving ...

 FS> BTW, you also have a very 
 FS> strange idea as to the nature of a democracy.

 PK> I am not surprised that you find my thoughts... different... Thats
 PK> what I have been suggesting to you from day 1 of this disscusion. I am
 PK> simply trying to get to to turn the rock over and look at the other
 PK> side, rather than just assume the side facing up is the only side worth
 PK> looking at. 

So we move from "coin" to "cake" and now to "rock" ... OK ... as 
you well know by now I *have* looked at the other side -- there 
was insanity obviously ... 

... "Ahh ... Very passable, this ... very passable." ÄÄ Monty Python

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)