Stephen Beecroft wrote:

> -Marc-
> > Let me ask you the same question I've been asking others, than. If
> > the criteria that the U.S. are using were to be applied to other
> > countries in the area, a much better case could be made for
> > invading Pakistan. Yet instead the US pours billions into military
> > aid for Pakistan. Why the difference?
> -Stephen-
> > I don't know.
> -Marc-
> > That doesn't seem to stop you from having strong opinions on the
> > issue. Or am I misreading you?
> Indeed you are. I don't believe I've stated any opinions on this subject
> at all. I am interested to hear thoughts on all sides; however, I am
> most concerned about the integrity of the arguments.
> -Marc-
> > When someone sees this difference, is it any wonder that one asks
> > whether there's more here than meets the eye?
> -Stephen-
> > No.
> -Marc-
> > You're not the least bit curious?
> Sure.
> -Stephen-
> > the point ... was that Elder Nelson was not making a pointed
> > condemnation of the US actions against Iraq, despite yours and
> > John's opinion to the contrary.
> -Marc-
> > That is not my opinion, as I've already shown.
> As you've now stated, you mean.

No. As originally stated. I have never, since the thread turned to discussion of
Elder Nelson's talk, specifically try to link his remarks to Iraq solely.

> -Marc-
> > I don't mind taking heat for what I've said or written, but I get
> > my knickers in a knot when I'm taken to task for what someone
> > *thinks* I've written.
> Having one's meaning mistaken is always a danger, and is usually
> irritating, even frustrating. I understand. Nevertheless, you clearly
> *were* criticizing the US policy vis-a-vis war with Iraq; and you *did*
> say that you "have a difficult time seeing how people can still, with
> all due respect, 'not get it' after hearing [Elder Nelson's] talk." I am
> curious to know what the antecedent to "it" is in the phrase "not get
> it",

Well, either you know what the antecedent is or you don't. Which is it? You seem
to want to criticize me regardless of which interpretation you read into my
comments. I've already said that personally I'm against pre-emptive military
action against Iraq. I have also said I do not believe Elder Nelson's comments
were specifically directed at Iraq. "It" is church policy regarding aggressive
wars. I think he's quite clear on that, but his timing could be purposeful,
indirectly directed at Iraq, or it could be coincidental. I don't think there's
enough information to tell, and in any case I think it would be out of character
for the Church to get that specific. They prefer to teach us correct principles
and let us govern ourselves.

> since you now say it isn't the evils of pursuing a war with Iraq.
> Also, you did agree with John, who clearly condemned US actions toward
> Iraq.

I've answered this already. A one-to-one correspondence is not necessarily for an
agreement to take place in human conversation. Your insistence on reading in
something I did not say is, I find, if not perverse, at least a bit obsessive. I
can understand your concern over the "integrity of the arguments" but your
statements regarding that integrity has to be backed up with more than opinion.

> So if you now claim that you never meant that, I'll believe you, because
> I don't think you're a liar (and I rather like you). But I really don't
> think you have much cause for knotting your knickers over my taking what
> seems to me to be the most obvious interpretation of your very own
> words.

I think there's a third option, which I honestly believe is more likely. Given
what you know of my beliefs, you assumed that what I was agreeing with in John's
post was his application of Elder Nelson's talk to Iraq specifically. That was,
if I can stand back from myself for a moment, not an unreasonable assumption. But
as it turns out, I believe there's an important distinction to be made, which I
think I've explained above (and in other responses). Hope that helps. If I
exhibit impatience at times know that I at least appreciate you keeping me on my

> Stephen

Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

"The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and
falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark."
--Michelangelo Buonarroti

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authorís employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to