Text 27789, 90 rader
Skriven 2006-04-20 07:40:47 av Björn Forsström (2:203/614.61)
  Kommentar till text 27740 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
Ärende: Canadian "Skills"
=========================
 BF>> The only truth is that he was alive, the other only seems to be his
 BF>> one-sided opinion.

 RW> In your opinion. What he relates here is how I see it as well, knowing
 RW> from my own background how it went in those times.

What went on in USA, sure, but you haven't a Clue<tm> what went on
here. Perhaps you need a Clue<tm> Adjustment.

 BF>>>>  and the right to "educate" or should I say, force,

 RW>>> No one is forcing you to read what he says. There is the next key.

 BF>> As I use when it comes from him.
 BF>> Why don't you do the same when it comes from someone you dislike?

 RW> Because they're the only reason I post here.

Must be a boring life you have, eh...?
......but why do *you* then tell *me* to use the next key (see above)?....
Don't do what I tell you to do, do as I do, eh...? ...and then you whine.....
Strange.

 RW>>> However, if you want to know about WW2, I'd shy away from the schools
 RW>>> there in urope, as they seem to have skipped over that part of history.

 BF>> You have been told before that it's the winner that writes the history.
 BF>> Perhaps we have the right version.

 RW> Your country wasn't a winner, they colaborated with the Nazi. You admit
 RW> that yourself.

I don't have any idea about why they let the Germans transit Sweden and I
think that that is still classified. All I know is that I didn't have anything
to do
with it. But since the 50's we have been colaborating with USA and then that
must be as bad, especially since we are neutral.
Remember N379P? And now even more countries have agreed to "helping"
CIA and USA.

 BF>>>> his opinion on to others?

 RW>>> Facts are facts, whether or not they're the opinion of someone who's
 RW>>> making a valid point is of no concern for the learned or the student.

 BF>> His "facts" comes from papers and news from within the US. He wasn't here
 BF>> you know so he couldn't speak about any "facts".

 RW> So you say. He also says that the facts come from the uropeon war zone.
 RW> Second hand of course, but if you can't believe your own brother, who can
 RW> you believe?

He isn't my brother.
And why should we believe him or you, you two don't believe in anything anyone
else says and if it should work one way it should even work the other.
Otherweise
it isn't a dialouge and that doesn't benifit any of us.
Think I've told you this before but wht should you listen. You always know the
best.

 BF>>>> As Roger Nelson said, it was a mistake (my second) posting here where
 BF>>>> there only are Einstein:s. I leave the mudslinging to you and retire to
 BF>>>> my park-bench, the coffe is getting cold.

 RW>>> Yes, which reminds me of the cliche'; if you can't play with the big
 RW>>> dogs, stay out of the game.

 BF>> I have about 25 years experience from dogs and those 25 years have
 BF>> learned me that the dog that barks the loudest is the most cowardly.

 RW> I've been around them longer then that and this isn't true.

It sure as hell is.
I've never heard a New Foundland or a S:t Bernhard bark but all this small
miniature poodle/schnauzer/pincher all sounds just like you. Barking for
everything without any reason for doing so.

 BF>> It's the silent one I'm afraid of. And if that's what counts here, to be
 BF>> the loudest barking dog, it certainly isn't me.

 RW> The one to be aware of is the one who's ears are layed back and his teeth
 RW> are showing. The silent one is merely sleeping. Frankly, I prefer cats.
 RW> They're smarter than dogs and much cleaner.

Those who you speak about can always be calmed unless the are very well
trained to attack. I've calmed many of then down just by talking nicely to
them.

---
 * Origin: . (2:203/614.61)