Adonis Diaries

Archive for January 4th, 2011

William’s reply to my comments on

“Thank you for your feedback, i find it unnecessary to reply to your post, as it offers no constructive feedback, and highly misleads the purpose of my notes.  at the same time, i see it as an opportunity to clarify some points to the community.  i understand that the reader might be misled by your false assumptions about my person, take them as true, and completely miss the beneficial points behind my notes; and so it becomes worth it to write the following:

1. you have to understand that each person has his priorities, for me, these priorities do not include learning more about the middle eastern conflict, nor about relativism, as you might have mentioned above (this does not make either one less valuable). by commenting on both of these topics, you miss the point of my notes completely. additionally, i never claimed to solve the middle eastern conflict, i only propose a method that would facilitate communication between 2 or more people.

2. Asking pertinent questions that demonstrate our sincere ignorance on a subject matter IS rewarding and honorable. at the same time, it absolutely cannot be done if you are in a heated argument with someone, emotions are hot, and everyone is overreacting. which makes the following claim of yours confusing, and with little meaning: “it’s better to ask questions that demonstrate our ignorance, than to avoid an argument.” instead i would say: “avoid an argument in the first place, then ask questions that demonstrate our ignorance, and help us understand the other part better”

3. i believe you extrapolated prematurely, assuming that i drew the 9 steps from this one conversation with my brother. this was an ‘example’ to make the 9 steps more tangible. if you refer back to the note, you can see that i started with: “for example, my brother…” the information i shared have been acquired from countless courses that i took, over the period of 2 years, specifically on communication, and on understand how to approach the mind in a way that the mind would find favorable. i don’t claim to be an expert, however, i do claim that i am more expert than others. and this means that those others will find benefit from what i share.

4. you also extrapolated prematurely that i failed to learn more about relativism. you yourself wrote that you witnessed the last past of the conversation with my brother. the very first part that you missed was all about me listening to everything my brother has to say. i did not interrupt, and i was not thinking of an answer. i was merely listening to what he understood from relativism, and asked some questions along the way for things that i didn’t completely understand. and although learning more about relativism is not a priority of mine, understanding what the other party is trying to say, is a priority.

5. it is true, i have confidence, and i also believe that you extrapolated prematurely as well, by assuming that my overconfidence will prevent me from fine-tuning and reviewing my technique. so far, i have gone back and edited 4 notes based on constructive feedback and comments from readers of my notes, and their personal experiences and knowledge. my personal approach to sharing is that of a community collectively growing the knowledge. i never claim that what i write is the ultimate truth. these are “notes” not PhD publications. and these notes are available for the public to build on, remove fallacies, add credibility, and expand them. and if you had provided any constructive input to fine-tuning the proposed technique, i would have gladly reviewed it; that’s how the collective & the individual benefit most. and i most welcome you to propose ways that would build on the technique i proposed.

Notes by me:  The first sentence in the reply was not promising for such an extensive and detailed post.  It appears that he listened patiently to the “lucubrations” of his brother and asked a few questions on relativism, a topic he is not interested in.  As for the 9 steps for avoiding arguments in conversation, William spent two years formulating them, although the last paragraph in the “Ramallah’s discussion” implies that it all got clear to him after the session and not that he was engaged in the formulation for a couple of year.  My apology again.  My critics of his disengagement on the Near East conflict still stand and with more insistence and vehemence as he declared that he is not interested in understanding this conflict! I don’t expect William to “solving the Near-Eastern problem”; just demonstrating concerns when it is discussed; like writing a few notes on the topics. I am under impression from the vehemence of his reply that my comments were a shock, sort of a first experience coming in the written form.  Publishing is exciting and very engaging to the mind and emotions.

Oil producing States generate more income than the State budget can spend; thus, the tendency of these governments are not to taxing citizens or in many instances subsidizing many daily food ingredients and gas for cars.  For example, in the State of Alaska every individual, adult or child, receives an annual check of $1,305.

In Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, and other big oil-producing countries subsidize gas for cars and other food staples such as wheat, rice, sugar,… The State of Louisiana, and the States of Alberta, Terre-Neuve, and Labrador in Canada experienced one-party hegemony for many decades because their citizens were freed from paying taxes,or the taxes were minimal.

The damnation for relying solely on natural resources and generating surpluses in State budgets is that democratic processes are practically abolished in return for no taxation.

The embargo on Iran pressured the government to cancelling subsidies and gas; thus, the citizens in Iran will have to be taxed higher and consequently, more equitable representation will have to be restored: “No taxation without representation”.  The theocratic leadership or “willayat fakih” will be content to becoming figure-head as Queen Elizabeth of England.

Norway has this foresight of preserving its oil revenues from political discourse or being used in political campaigns.  The citizens of Norway are being still taxed but the tax rate is not increasing as in other developed nations; thus, politics is shifting to the right-wing parties because of abundance in oil surpluses.

In big oil-producing States, women are the first to pay the heavy price in the abridgment of their right to work and constituting a larger part in the productive structure.  For example, in States poor in oil resources such as Tunisia, Morocco, and Lebanon women had to participate in the work force for running the small and medium industrial and service enterprises:  In this case, women have more liberty and the potentials to demanding equal rights and responsibilities.  The Saudi women are revolting because they are forbidden to drive and to travel inside their borders without being accompanied by a male member of the family.

States rich in natural resources with the exclusion of oil are not witnessing the same consequences for several reasons:  First, extraction of the raw materials is expensive and require constant investment in transport, machinery, and maintenance; it not like you build a pipeline and watch the oil flow in terminals. Second, the regimes are maintained in power by the multinationals backed by their government and thus, citizens are getting poorer because of fictitious lousy extraction contracts.





January 2011

Blog Stats

  • 1,522,070 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 769 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: