XPost: soc.culture.nordic
From: anton.usenet@gmail.com
David Friedman kirjoitti:
> In article ,
> Anton wrote:
>> David Friedman kirjoitti:
>>> In article ,
>>> Anton wrote:
>>>> David Friedman kirjoitti:
>>>>> Could be. But whether a "business opportunity" is a benefit or a cost
>>>>> depends on the price offered, at least in a situation where
>>>>> "opportunities" cannot be freely rejected.
>>>> That part is pure speculation. As you are so eager to seek solid proof,
>>>> perhaps you practice as you preach and provide solid proof to that claim
>>>> also?
>>> The claim that whether it is a benefit or a cost depends on the price,
>>> if opportunities can't be freely rejected? Isn't that too obvious to
>>> require proof? If someone offers you the business opportunity to mow his
>>> lawn for ten cents an hours and threatens to have you killed if you
>>> refuse, it isn't it obvious that the opportunity is a cost?
>> The question is, "*is* somebody threatening to kill you". Well.. how
>> about Mr David "I need solid proof" Friedman provides the solid proof then?
> You keep missing the fact that I'm not claiming to know what actually
> was happening,
Perhaps not at the beginning, but as the discussion went further you
were suggesting a lot of things - like that you just wrote.
> merely claiming that you (plural) don't.
I can't speak for the behalf of others, but I never claimed to be an
expert or an insider.
> For that
> purpose, possibilities are sufficient. You (still plural) need solid
> proof because you claim to know what happened.
That was my personal opinion - based on information that had been
available. Perhaps some of my assertions needed correction. I don't deny
that. Now that I admitted that we can move on to seek the "truth" about
_your_ claims.
Well David: were there threats to "kill" Finland or not?
--
Anton
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
