Text 28812, 123 rader
Skriven 2006-05-05 09:13:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av BJöRN FORSSTRöM
Ärende: Canadian "Skills"
=========================
-=> Quoting Björn Forsström to Frank Scheidt <=-

 BF>> We were against it and GWB did this on his own, for the wrong reason, so
 BF>> it's your problem. Not anyone elses.
 
 FS> Since it's being done for the interest of the entire world, the entire
 FS> world should contribute

 BF> I can agree with that but only England bought the story about WMD:s
 BF> and it would haven been better if Russia was in it too but since you
 BF> started it on your own you can't come whining now. Spain have left (if
 BF> I'm correct) and Denmark is going to reduce their force.

Spain left mainly because of that Madrid train explosion.
 
 BF>> **
 FS>> That was (is?) a truly *minor* matter -- the transportation of terrorists
 FS>> to prison ... so let's move on ... [sigh] ...
 BF>> **
 BF>> I know of at least 2 cases where the passengers were innocent.
 
 FS> Possibly ... mistakes are made, after all ...

 BF> And none have ever said they are sorry for it either. And we have
 BF> still people on the terrorist list that haven't been proven guilty too.
 
Politics being what it is, *no* politician dares apologize for an 
error.  If he *does* the opposition party will jump on his 
admission and beat up on him.  That's the way politics goes.  
Say -- strictly for the sake of discussion -- that the US 
*admitted* some error in invading Iraq, and note this is merely 
for the sake of discussion:  What do you think would happen?  Do 
you think the foreign critics would accept that and move on?  I 
don't.  I think they'd just use that as another excuse to batter 
the US ...

 FS>> If you only knew ...
 
 BF>> I do.
 
 FS> You *don't*.  You're concentrating on that ancient WWI war debt thing.

 BF> Errr....no. You do.

I *reply* to others' statements regarding it ... 
 FS>  I
 FS> don't *expect* it ever to be paid.  I brought it up because some one
 FS> (you?) mentioned a *monetary* debt.  That debt clearly filled the bill (no
 FS> pun intended)= ...

 BF> No I didn't. My respons to that debt was to bring up N379P.
 
OK ...

 BF>> Above, between  ** and ** you agreed, again.
 
 FS> What you are ignoring is this:  The mention in our papers WRT
 FS> that plane was a minor matter.  It was given little mention and was
 FS> something *anyone* could have easily missed.

 BF> But how long did it take to convince you about it? At least 6 months.

It didn't take "long" to convince me.  It took an article in 
*our* "news"media to do it.  You may recall that I mentioned 
*our* papers will *leap* at any chance to criticize the US.  You 
don't believe that, of course, just as you routinely reject 
almost anything I say, but it's the truth nonetheless.  Having 
said that there finally appeared in our paper an article about 
the plane.  When that showed up I mentioned it to you.  However 
that may have been the only mention of it.  It was no big deal 
here.
 
 FS> There are *far* more
 FS> important and interesting things in the news.

 BF> Here in Europe it was rather big.
 
 FS> *I* mentioned it to you
 FS> just to give you credit that it *did* exist.  *Anyone* here could have
 FS> missed the article.  It's just that *I*, personally, pay a lot of
 FS> attention to published news.

 BF> After I brought it to your attention.

True ... I looked for it since then ... it seems it was *weeks* 
later, though, that it showed up ...
 
 BF>> You have moved on wrt. N379P since that's negative for you but you
 BF>> haven't moved on from the war debt which seems to be your fanatical
 BF>> interest.
 
 FS> See above as to *why* I bring up that ancient debt ...

 BF> As I said, my respons to the debt was to mention N379P.
 
 BF>> You want me to move on from N379P but when I ask you to move on from the
 BF>> war debt *I* am the bad guy. Shouldn't this work in both directions?
 
 FS> Of *course* it should and I'm more than willing to stop talking about that
 FS> WWI debt.  After all that will *never* be paid.

 BF> We both know it so why keep bringing it up?
 
*I* don't keep bringing it up.  I merely *respons* to others' 
questions -- such as yours ...

 FS>> I *never* try to force my ideas on others.  I merely express them -- and
 FS>> they're almost always damn good ideas!
 
 BF>> This is where our opinions differ (again).
 
 FS> I could easily argue thing rationally if you'd stop the incessant
 FS> insulting ...

 BF> Well, you're not the most innocent in that matter either.

No argument there, though mine are *defensive* ...

... "I'm going to pick berries," Tom rasped.

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