Text 5565, 60 rader
Skriven 2004-12-02 10:55:05 av Björn Forsström (2:203/614.61)
   Kommentar till text 5533 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: Breaking News!
======================

 BF>> The we are back to square one.
 BF>> Why do I have to believe you then? Just because you are American?

 FS> You didn't read what I said, "I don't think I *have* to do that"? Read it!

I don't *have* to either but it's a matter of certain trust, isn't it?
To keep up a "normal" discussion takes an amout of trust from both sides.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
If I should believe what you are saying you just have to believe what I'm
saying, otheweise we can drop all of this right away.
Just because this with N379P hasn't been on American news doesn't
mean it haven't happend and when a Swedish Minister in national TV says
it have, well, who is then to say she is lying? And why the 'ech should she?
Especially when it's compromising herself and when I say it's been on
Swedish news you just *have* to trust me, wouln't you?

And what's om the news here now is that none Swedish poloticians have
under at least 20 years never called in sick and that's because, if they do,
they only get 80% in sallary. And still, at least one of them have done a
knee-operation and demonstrably have been in a hospital!
Then this is the people that are the ones to decide over my sickness benefit.
Real assholes is what they are.

 FS> As for believing *me*, you don't *have* to ... who said you did?  However
 FS> since it's extremely rare for me to actually lie, you might as well
 FS> believe me.  Of course why should you believe *that*?  You see, it's
 FS> because of *that*, that I say I learn about a given person only by
 FS> conversing with him over a long-enough period of time ... do you believe
 FS> *that*?  I don't use words as carelessly as you appear to believe.

Then we are in the same boat, hopefully rowing in the same direction.

 FS> Your last sentence was unnecessary.  After all, who can tell what another
 FS> person will *believe* -- *really* believe?  In any event the Marine, upon
 FS> entering that room said something like, "Watch out!  He's moving.  He's
 FS> not dead." ... shots ... "he is now" ... then consider the immediate past
 FS> in that Marine's life.  The day before, or so, he had seen a friend blown
 FS> up by a "dead" or, perhaps, suicidal terrorist.  He was in a very
 FS> stressful situation and was right in being extremely cautious in the
 FS> presence of someone who *might* be "playing possum" (I presume they have
 FS> opossums in Sweden.)

No we don't but I see what you mean.
But just because he was moving doesn't mean he must have to be killed.

 FS> Finally, this single incident, taken in the context of a war on terror, is
 FS> *trivial* -- except to someone who is anti-American in the first place,
 FS> hence grasps every opportunity to make the U.S. look bad!  And *no* I
 FS> don't consider a violent death to be "trivial" to the person involved but
 FS> we must be reasonable here and consider the immediate past history of the
 FS> Marine.

I understand but we must even see to the past history of the once on the other
side as well. They are only humans, all of them. What can he have been seeing
and what was his experience of what happend the day before when other Marines
took that building.

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