14498: Sanba: Re:14493: Vishnusurf: Re: 14481: Sanba: Re:14460: Vishnusurf: Re : 14451: Sanba: Re:14443: Ano... (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: sanba@juno.com


One thing is to say demonstrators are being paid, another on is to say they are sometimes paid.

I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on you witnessing such transactions. However that does not tell me who pays them. Nor does it say why. Why should you say why? Because any protest implies an organization, unless it is a spontaneous uprising against a sporadic event, like what happens in a stadium, for example. Organization means that some people are going to receive money, doesn't it? Organization may mean also that demonstration is part of a job description to the extent that it matches the need of a good Public Relation. Therefore, dear Vishnusurf, for having not addressed the why question pivotal to your conclusion, it can be but conjectural. Not even mentionning your "sometimes paid".

As to the Convergence, I said that it has been formed by IRI. For what? Certainly to do what it has been doing, which is blocking the government initiatives and complain after that it cannot deliver. That is to say the least. Am I right or wrong? Then whom this work is done for? Isn't it fair to say for the benefit of it who founded it? Where is the conjecture in my line of reasoning?

I do not feel the purpose of insisting that at the start you were the one referring to this historical event that took place at La Bastille, le 14 juillet 1791, to base your argument about demonstrators being paid.

By the way this argument went unchallenged. In gross it means that people had been bribed to take over La Bastille, doesn't it?