XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.math   
   From: physfitfreak@gmail.com   
      
   On 4/19/25 7:39 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:   
   > On 4/19/25 5:19 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:   
   >> On 4/19/25 2:37 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:   
   >>> On 4/19/25 1:59 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> An Iranian more independent and self-centered news outlet (in   
   >>>> Telegram) which does not necessarily obey any demands on them by   
   >>>> Iran's government, early on, towards the beginning of the talk   
   >>>> disclosed that Araghchi and his team had cancelled the talk minutes   
   >>>> into its start, and for about 15 minutes or so were preparing to   
   >>>> leave the building (Ommani embassy in Italy) and return to Iran.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> This news piece was not touched on at the end of the 2nd rounds   
   >>>> talks by spokesperson of foreign ministry. No other Iranian sources   
   >>>> of news also touched on that, either because they didn't have the   
   >>>> information, or they followed ministry's directive in keeping it   
   >>>> quiet. No news of it in Western outlets that I could see either.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> In this round of talk, no reporters were allowed in the building.   
   >>> Even spokesperson himself wasn't allowed to be there. And I don't   
   >>> think anyone among Iran's team texted this out directly to that news   
   >>> agency. It'd be absurd to do that. Much more likely, Araghchi himself   
   >>> called up other Iran's authorities to ask for permission to abort,   
   >>> and it was granted. Then some Iranians in the government itself   
   >>> immediately leaked it to that news agency against the wishes of the   
   >>> government.   
   >>>   
   >>> There's a second route also. Perhaps some Mossad agent among   
   >>> Americans' team texted it out to Mossad, and Iran's spies among   
   >>> Mossad (plenty of them!) texted it to that news agency and perhaps   
   >>> scores of other ones as well, then only the most independent one   
   >>> disclosed it in Telegram. I think these two are the only routes that   
   >>> the news could take to come out.   
   >>>   
   >>> I saw the news piece just minutes after the attempt to abort took   
   >>> place! I.e. during those minutes that mission was aborted. This is a   
   >>> bit too fast to be normal reaction on either side. I think there's   
   >>> more to it than it seems.   
   >>>   
   >>> How it was handled _after_ 2nd round was over, was of course just   
   >>> correct diplomatic behavior preserving both sides' face. Such nitty   
   >>> gritties are washed and cleaned off before news to media is given.   
   >>> But the fact that somebody, some side, wanted very badly and quickly   
   >>> for it to come out, is the strange and interesting part of it :)   
   >>>   
   >>> Could be that somebody will explain this in the news for a wider   
   >>> audience. We'll see.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> On the official Iranian news channel whose reporter woman was in Rome   
   >> broadcasting live from outside the place of meeting, the only clue   
   >> that could point to this event is that she said (live cast)   
   >> spokesperson was called inside and despite arrangements made between   
   >> them to relay the news to the woman reporter, she was saying he had   
   >> gone silent for the past few minutes and is not responding to our   
   >> queries. Then she herself concluded that "talks may have started to   
   >> cover very serious matters, taking all spokesman's attention." :) This   
   >> is the only sign that you could see in Iran's official news.   
   >>   
   >> Anyway, this thing isn't deserving all this attention and I'm already   
   >> sick of it. As far as my own view is concerned, as I've said it   
   >> multiple times, it doesn't matter how this talk "goes forward" or even   
   >> is kept going or not. This whole thing to contact and create a   
   >> dialogue with the Americans is inconsequential to Iran because   
   >> regardless of the outcome, Iran must and would do exactly what she   
   >> should, with or without a talk. There aren't "choices" there for Iran   
   >> to think and choose from when Nazis are pressuring her.   
   >>   
   >> In fact this is also the stance of Pezeshkiyan and Iran's Leader   
   >> himself. Both of them have pointed out that this matter of   
   >> "negotiation" is one among tens of other tasks that foreign ministry   
   >> is involved in and does not absorb any more attention than that, and   
   >> some people's tying the events or their decisions and plans to it is   
   >> ridiculous.   
   >>   
   >> Talking with Americans is not consequential for Iran, and therefore,   
   >> it is not consequential _to_ Iran. End of this crap story.   
   >>   
   >> Talking with Russia is, and talking with China is, and similarly   
   >> developing ties with central Asians and Arabs and Indians and central   
   >> and south Americans ARE consequential for (and to) Iran.   
   >>   
   >> USA and its cohorts and to tell you the truth the whole fucking   
   >> cro-magnon people is a thing of the past for Iran. It was over decades   
   >> ago.   
   >>   
   >> Here let me one more time quote Raisi on that:   
   >>   
   >>     "They are the past; we are the future. I repeat, they are the   
   >> past, and we are the future."   
   >>   
   >>                     - Raisi in delivering his speech in   
   UN   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > More bits and pieces of what went on has come out. Same reporter to whom   
   > Araghchi had told, "It is moving forward", when reporter asked directly   
   > whether negotiations were constructive, Araghchi emphasized that, "The   
   > negotiations took place in a constructive _atmosphere_"..   
   >   
   > So the machinery was there at best as it could be arranged, but as far   
   > as results are concerned it is too soon to comment. I.e. nothing is yet   
   > done.   
   >   
   > Next round is one week later in Omman again. I don't know how they came   
   > up with the idea of doing it once a week. Who decided that one week of   
   > thinking it over and making up the mind is neither too short nor too   
   > long? Is there some study that has determined that? Is it what Iran   
   > wants, or is it USA's choice? Too long for Trump personally, but what is   
   > the norm and where has it come from. What study?   
   >   
   > In physics, for instance, the period is about one year. You won't 100%   
   > understand, and won't integrate it fully with your present knowledge,   
   > what you are packing into your brain right now, till a year later. And   
   > as you continue packing stuff in it, only what you packed a year earlier   
   > will make 100% sense to you and 100% available for you to apply and   
   > utilize.   
   >   
   > But that's physics. How about sensitive negotiations? Did they discover   
   > this one-week period by trial and error in settling spousal disputes or   
   > something? Does court of law do it also?   
   >   
   > For the decision my dick made to dump physics and destroy my degree, my   
   > dick gave it almost exactly one week of off and on intense thought. But   
   > that's my dick, and not everybody is a Physfit's dick.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)