Oh, I'm sorry if it was to much to expect you to read your own link. Really, how could I ask so much of you? I'm truly a thoughtless person.
This is all I see... ""The IAEA has about 200 inspectors it could send to Iran".....what am I missing?Bubbalo wrote:
Your link, genius.usmarine2007 wrote:
link please?
What's 200 minus 38?
This is not about math, it is about info...Bubbalo wrote:
What's 200 minus 38?
Where is that in my link? Where is "allows entry of 162" at?.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
Iran allows 162 nuclear inspectors on a United Nations list enter the country.
If there are 200 and 38 are barred, it can be safely assumed the others are not. Otherwise the headline probably would have read "200 barred". Just this theory I have about newspapers not choosing random numbers. Call me crazy.
No need to insult me for something that is not even there. I did not write the story, nor is it up to me to "assume" 162 inspectors are going to be allowed entry. They are on a list according to this story.Bubbalo wrote:
If there are 200 and 38 are barred, it can be safely assumed the others are not. Otherwise the headline probably would have read "200 barred". Just this theory I have about newspapers not choosing random numbers. Call me crazy.
""The IAEA has about 200 inspectors it could send to Iran, so stopping 38 of them will not impede its ability to carry out inspections,"
Yes, and, so far, 162 of them have not been refused entry, meaning that Iran has, so far, not breached it's obligations.
Are you trying to be dense?
Are you trying to be dense?
No, I am assuming the other way like you. Why can't I assume that 162 could be banned also?Bubbalo wrote:
Yes, and, so far, 162 of them have not been refused entry, meaning that Iran has, so far, not breached it's obligations.
Are you trying to be dense?
Innocent until proven guilty?usmarine2007 wrote:
No, I am assuming the other way like you. Why can't I assume that 162 could be banned also?Bubbalo wrote:
Yes, and, so far, 162 of them have not been refused entry, meaning that Iran has, so far, not breached it's obligations.
Are you trying to be dense?
Already guilty on 38 counts, but still innocent on 162 counts yes..:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty?usmarine2007 wrote:
No, I am assuming the other way like you. Why can't I assume that 162 could be banned also?Bubbalo wrote:
Yes, and, so far, 162 of them have not been refused entry, meaning that Iran has, so far, not breached it's obligations.
Are you trying to be dense?
I'm sure we can come up with a whole list of reprehensable things done by the Iranian government without needing to worry about stuff they haven't done.
I am not worried about what they have not done, I am worried about what theyr are doing..:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
I'm sure we can come up with a whole list of reprehensable things done by the Iranian government without needing to worry about stuff they haven't done.
Oh come on. You can't be serious.usmarine2007 wrote:
No, I am assuming the other way like you. Why can't I assume that 162 could be banned also?Bubbalo wrote:
Yes, and, so far, 162 of them have not been refused entry, meaning that Iran has, so far, not breached it's obligations.
Are you trying to be dense?
Obviously only 38 were banned because it says that 38 WERE BANNED. If all 200 were banned it would've said 200 (or all) were banned, not 38. I mean, duh. You're either banned or you're not.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
That was not my point. But since they want to assume, why can't we also assume the other way?Spark wrote:
Oh come on. You can't be serious.usmarine2007 wrote:
No, I am assuming the other way like you. Why can't I assume that 162 could be banned also?Bubbalo wrote:
Yes, and, so far, 162 of them have not been refused entry, meaning that Iran has, so far, not breached it's obligations.
Are you trying to be dense?
Obviously only 38 were banned because it says that 38 WERE BANNED. If all 200 were banned it would've said 200 (or all) were banned, not 38. I mean, duh. You're either banned or you're not.
What about on probation?Spark wrote:
Oh come on. You can't be serious.usmarine2007 wrote:
No, I am assuming the other way like you. Why can't I assume that 162 could be banned also?Bubbalo wrote:
Yes, and, so far, 162 of them have not been refused entry, meaning that Iran has, so far, not breached it's obligations.
Are you trying to be dense?
Obviously only 38 were banned because it says that 38 WERE BANNED. If all 200 were banned it would've said 200 (or all) were banned, not 38. I mean, duh. You're either banned or you're not.
I guess the question is why were they banned? Nothing to hide right? The articles doesn't say who these inspectors were obviously.
Xbone Stormsurgezz