From: kurkku@hassuserveri.fi
"David Friedman" kirjoitti
viestissä:ddfr-54753E.23425020082008@CA.NEWS.VERIO.NET...
> 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)
|
