XPost: soc.culture.nordic   
   From: ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com   
      
   In article ,   
    Anton  wrote:   
      
   > 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,   
      
   Did I claim to know what actually was happening later? Perhaps you could   
   point at the examples you are thinking of?   
      
   > but as the discussion went further you   
   > were suggesting a lot of things - like that you just wrote.   
      
   "Suggesting?" I was pointing out possible reasons why conclusions other   
   people asserted might not be true--and, in some cases, evidence to   
   support those reasons.   
      
   > > 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.   
      
   I find it hard to keep track of who said what here. I think a number of   
   people asserted, confidently, that Finland was gaining, economically   
   speaking, by the exchange. I am not certain whether you were one of   
   them--were you?   
      
   I don't think those people claimed to be experts, except to the extent   
   that they implied that being Finns or living in Finland gave them some   
   expertise. I think they were simply much too willing to accept the   
   conventional wisdom on the subject, without thinking seriously about   
   whether they had good reason to.   
      
   > > 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.   
      
   What claims?   
      
   > Well David: were there threats to "kill" Finland or not?   
      
   I don't know. Where did I claim that there were threats to kill Finland?   
      
   Various of the other posters suggested that Finland's relation to the   
   USSR was in part a way of dealing with a powerful and dangerous   
   neighbor; I'm pretty sure one or more of them pointed at what happened   
   to Estonia.   
      
   --   
    http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/   
    Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.   
    Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)