Iranian Pres Speech...

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Doc, i'm in bold below:

I suggest again, the question "WHY", in that event, and every tragic event, at home and abroad, should consume honest researchers... MY trite question: Are there situations where/when negotiations are NOT "useless"? ;-) Warm regards, Roger, hoping this goes through, from another library????

Let's cut to the chase, Roger. Rather than sitting here playing 20 questions, why don't you just give us your answers to the above two questions?

RM: It takes two to play. I assume these are the 2 questions you refer to. 1- "...are there situations where negotiations are useless?" Of course. I expected we both knew that. 2- Re the 9-11 hijack: I don't know. Had there been the 'right' people on the passenger list, who's to say? Obviously the 'right' people weren't there.

(Also: A person is only allotted a finite amout of quotation marks to use in his or her lifetime. You've exceeded your quota many times over. The same goes for question marks.

RM: Is this a rule on MDF? Is there a monetary cost involved? (If so i'll send a cheque :-) Or, just a personal irritant? (If so, maybe we both can adjust? ;-) For your information below:

Quotation marks or inverted commas (also informally quotes,[1] and occasionally speech marks) are punctuation marks used in pairs to set off speech, a quotation, a phrase or a word. The pair consists of an opening quotation mark and a closing quotation mark, which may or may not be the same character. (UL added by RM)

Next time, so the rest of us can make better sense of your writing, please don't use any quotation marks unless you're actually typing out the words that someone else said beforehand. And, for the next little while, no more than one punctuation mark per sentence. Deal?)[/quote

Explaination of the multiple "?": They express 'wondering' &/or 'uncertainty' on my part. To me they add more clarity than confussion. But, i certainly want you to, "... make better sense of (my) writing..." But, please appreciate, "old habits--especially 'good-ones'--die hard". Warm regards, Roger

[_Dr. Shades]

It takes two to play. I assume these are the 2 questions you refer to. 1- "...are there situations where negotiations are useless?" Of course. I expected we both knew that.

Then why have you been carrying on as though you believe the exact opposite?

2- Re the 9-11 hijack: I don't know. Had there been the 'right' people on the passenger list, who's to say? Obviously the 'right' people weren't there.

I am TOTALLY confused by that. What constitutes the "right people"--as opposed to the wrong people--and how could they have made any difference?

For your information below:

Quotation marks or inverted commas (also informally quotes,[1] and occasionally speech marks) are punctuation marks used in pairs to set off speech, a quotation, a phrase or a word. The pair consists of an opening quotation mark and a closing quotation mark, which may or may not be the same character. (UL added by RM)

Right. But there are situations wherein the speech, phrase, or word need not be set off at all. Remember, always remember: Less is more.

Explaination of the multiple "?": They express 'wondering' &/or 'uncertainty' on my part. To me they add more clarity than confussion.

Right again. But you only need one at a time, not four at a time. Again, less is more.

[_Roger Morrison]

Doc, from your above post:

Roger Morrison wrote:
It takes two to play. I assume these are the 2 questions you refer to. 1- "...are there situations where negotiations are useless?" Of course. I expected we both knew that.


Then why have you been carrying on as though you believe the exact opposite?

RM: Because, I believe there would be more successful, and fewer useless, negotiations if more positive energy was honestly put into the effort to dialogue. Is that the exact opposite? I don't think so. As i followed Richard's reasoning, and sarcasm, it appeared to ME that he, as well as others, did not see any way to receive the Iranian President , and his speach, except with contempt. I didn't, nor don't agree with that attitude. So be it.

Quote:
2- Re the 9-11 hijack: I don't know. Had there been the 'right' people on the passenger list, who's to say? Obviously the 'right' people weren't there.


I am TOTALLY confused by that. What constitutes the "right people"--as opposed to the wrong people--and how could they have made any difference?

RM: Either you are easily confused, or i'm really good at confusing?? (Note, just 2 '?' ;-) OK, simply supposition. BUT, if there had been some Muslims on board, who spoke their mother-tongue, were well versed in their shared faith...MAYBE they might have "...made (a) difference..." I'm not taking bets...

I'm not much on guess work, or miracle-workers. But, i have not given up on humankind's evolution. MLKJr was one of the "right people". I believe "right people" will find alternatives to war. I doubt that they will come from the herd of those waiting for the "second coming" nor from those counting on their Heavenly inheritance. Especially will they not come from the $$$$ making military complex. Enough already!!

Thanks for your constructive suggestions. I'll do my moment's best. Warm regards, Roger (Over & out:-) Check out my "First Page" in this Forum?

[_Jason Bourne]

Richard and Roger

You both really need to learn to use the quote features better and edit your post. They are almost impossible to follow and tedious. Please, it is rather simple to cut and paste and highlight a quote, hit quote then respond beneath it. If you can use the bold function you can use the quote function. I would like to read what you say but your response posts are just so hard to follow that I often just skim.

[_Roger Morrison]

Thanks Jason, youn are right. I'll try... Warm regards, Roger learning...

[_richardMdBorn]

My new comments are in bold.

Roger Re the 9-11 hijack: I don't know. Had there been the 'right' people on the passenger list, who's to say? Obviously the 'right' people weren't there.

Shades I am TOTALLY confused by that. What constitutes the "right people"--as opposed to the wrong people--and how could they have made any difference?

Roger Either you are easily confused, or I'm really good at confusing?? (Note, just 2 '?' ;-) OK, simply supposition. BUT, if there had been some Muslims on board, who spoke their mother-tongue, were well versed in their shared faith...MAYBE they might have "...made (a) difference..." I'm not taking bets..

Richard I think that Roger is reluctantly admitting that there are some times when negotiation is useless.

Roger Because, I believe there would be more successful, and fewer useless, negotiations if more positive energy was honestly put into the effort to dialogue. Is that the exact opposite? I don't think so. As I followed Richard's reasoning, and sarcasm, it appeared to ME that he, as well as others, did not see any way to receive the Iranian President , and his speach, except with contempt. I didn't, nor don't agree with that attitude. So be it.

Richard You’re the one who doesn’t appear to be interested in understanding "Ahmadinejad. I cited his repeated calls for the destruction of Israel and the US – Roger’s response was

Roger Threats made in posturing & pravado, made by anyone, I don't take too seriously.”

Richard Yes, and people thought that Hitler was a joke. Read about the 13th Imam theology if you don’t take it seriously

Roger IF you can/will get past the person-thing here, yourselves and Ahmadinejad, to consider the principles involved, you might see the probabilities of effective negotiations being a better means to peaceful cohabitation than force, fear and human sacrifice.

Richard But we are dealing with a person and an ideology. Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric and actions are consistent. How do you get past Ahmadinejad when he’s the one you with whom you would be negotiating. Roger, do you think that war is ever justified. Is the use of force ever justified?

[_Jason Bourne]

Richard

Let me show you how your post could look

My new comments are in bold.

First of all if you use quotes you do not need to do bold only on points you really want to emphasize and you can drop the "so and so says"

Roger Re the 9-11 hijack: I don't know. Had there been the 'right' people on the passenger list, who's to say? Obviously the 'right' people weren't there.

Shades I am TOTALLY confused by that. What constitutes the "right people"--as opposed to the wrong people--and how could they have made any difference?

Roger Either you are easily confused, or I'm really good at confusing?? (Note, just 2 '?' ;-) OK, simply supposition. BUT, if there had been some Muslims on board, who spoke their mother-tongue, were well versed in their shared faith...MAYBE they might have "...made (a) difference..." I'm not taking bets..

Richard I think that Roger is reluctantly admitting that there are some times when negotiation is useless.

Roger Because, I believe there would be more successful, and fewer useless, negotiations if more positive energy was honestly put into the effort to dialogue. Is that the exact opposite? I don't think so. As I followed Richard's reasoning, and sarcasm, it appeared to ME that he, as well as others, did not see any way to receive the Iranian President , and his speach, except with contempt. I didn't, nor don't agree with that attitude. So be it.

Richard You’re the one who doesn’t appear to be interested in understanding "Ahmadinejad. I cited his repeated calls for the destruction of Israel and the US – Roger’s response was

Roger Threats made in posturing & pravado, made by anyone, I don't take too seriously.”

Richard Yes, and people thought that Hitler was a joke. Read about the 13th Imam theology if you don’t take it seriously

Roger IF you can/will get past the person-thing here, yourselves and Ahmadinejad, to consider the principles involved, you might see the probabilities of effective negotiations being a better means to peaceful cohabitation than force, fear and human sacrifice.

Richard But we are dealing with a person and an ideology. Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric and actions are consistent. How do you get past Ahmadinejad when he’s the one you with whom you would be negotiating. Roger, do you think that war is ever justified. Is the use of force ever justified?

[_richardMdBorn]

Hi Jason,

Thanks for the suggestions. It looks good.

Richard

[_Roger Morrison]

Jason, thanks from me as well. Richard, where to from here? :-) Warm regards, Roger

[_richardMdBorn]

Roger, we're clearly not going to agree. You might check out this interview with Hirsi Ali

https://www.reason.com/news/show/122457.html

She makes some mistakes. This quote is incorrect in my opinion

Catholics should be proselytizing about a God who is love, who represents a hereafter where there’s no hell, who wants you to lead a life where you can confess your sins and feel much better afterwards.

I think that official RC teaching still includes hell.

The entire interview is worth reading. The conclusion is

Hirsi Ali: Well, it hasn’t been tamed like Christianity. See, the Christian powers have accepted the separation of the worldly and the divine. We don’t interfere with their religion, and they don’t interfere with the state. That hasn’t happened in Islam.

But I don’t even think that the trouble is Islam. The trouble is the West, because in the West there’s this notion that we are invincible and that everyone will modernize anyway, and that what we are seeing now in Muslim countries is a craving for respect. Or it’s poverty, or it’s caused by colonization.

The Western mind-set—that if we respect them, they’re going to respect us, that if we indulge and appease and condone and so on, the problem will go away—is delusional. The problem is not going to go away. Confront it, or it’s only going to get bigger.