Text 21388, 89 rader
Skriven 2006-01-08 08:46:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av PETER KNAPPER
Ärende: Lack of Gratitude
=========================
-=> Quoting Peter Knapper to Frank Scheidt <=-

 PK> 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.
 
 FS> We're moving from "coin" to "cake" now?  

 PK> I am simply trying to find some common ground that you are able to
 PK> understand.  

Unfortunately for you, I *do* understand ... after all, it's 
*you* who stubbornly stick to the weird idea that the bombing of 
the WTC was somehow justified ... of course you never explain 
*why* ... [sigh] ...

 FS> I've explained why the terrorists bombed the WTC many times,

 PK> No you have not, you have either -
 PK> 1. Simply labelled them as "insane", 
 PK> 2. Said that its tough to find an explaination.
 PK> Neither of those is any form of WHY the attacks took place. This is
 PK> simply why I keep suggesting that you are having trouble rationalising
 PK> the events. 

Apparently you don't understand the *significance* of having 
insane people piloting a large aircraft ...

 PK> But the bottom line is that if you really are unable to rationalise it
 PK> then there is little point in us trying to discuss it further.
 
Good ... so *drop* it ...
 
 FS> I've mentioned many times why those terrorists murdered the WTC 
 FS> people.  However you will not accept it. 

 PK> Correct, I cannot accept your explaination that they are all insane,
 PK> that simply makes no sense at all, because insame simply people cannot
 PK> operate the way they did.

That shows you know little about psychotic behavior ...
 
 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.  
 
 FS> Haven't you *heard*?  The Iraqis recent held a popular election!  

 PK> So you are saying that between the time the USA entered Iraq and that
 PK> election, NOTHING HAPPENED... time stood absolutely still. That is very
 PK> selective thinking on your part Frank...

When did I say *that*?  Care to show me?  Or do you just enjoy 
trying to put words into my mouth?
 
 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 
 FS> is the only side worth looking at. 
 
 FS> So we move from "coin" to "cake" and now to "rock" ... OK ... as 
 FS> you well know by now I *have* looked at the other side -- 

 PK> So then my point stands that you are unable to present an unbiased
 PK> story of the events, even by the example -

I have told you.  You simply won't listen ... lessee, in your 
lingo that would be listening with one ear ... is that right?
 
 FS> there was insanity obviously ... 

 PK> To take that statement as something that really might mean something,
 PK> the only way I could apply it to anything you have said is if you said
 PK> it about the USA rationale for the action.

Wow!  Such an idea!

... "Fish gotta fly / Birds gotta swim ... "

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