It seems it was my mistake to even reply to your comment. You took my example as a fact of changing the scenario when it was meant to **act as an analogy** to highlight the **importance of context**. Did you even read everything that I wrote?
---
There is nothing more to say really, my post actually supports your initial thoughts while highlighting the flawed logic in asserting that there was no threat simply **from one statement posted in this article.** This whole scandal could very well be a whole lot of nothing since there does not seem to be a way to substantiate the truth in these verbal statements.
---
As you said yourself "This starting to look more and more like too much about nothing".
Your logic is actually flawed but for a different reason. The conclusion you reach is based on a *pure definition* of the word ‘threat’ - *this is your flawed premise*. I would agree that with this premise, Mr. Newbold's statement does not constitute a threat. The only problem though, is that you are not considering the *context of the situation*.
---
For example, if a man points a gun at you and says “John, If you don’t understand Family Island administration, I would make it easy for you” - then this would be a threat with the intention of death. The presence of a gun gives sufficient context to modify the meaning of the statement.
---
In the same way, one could also argue quite reasonably two things when considering the context in this article. First of all, the statement ‘if I don’t understand Family Island administration, he would make it easy for me’ *gives the implied meaning* of Mr. Newbold *being incompetent in his administration job*.
---
Secondly, the statements are made ‘in [a] harsh sounding tone as if he was angry’, further modifying the meaning, so much so, that If you were in Mr. Newbold’s shoes at that moment, it would sound as if you were being threatened *with the intention of losing your position!*
---
Naturally, the problem with this whole fiasco is that it devolves into two witnesses who are both involved (he say, she say). There seems to be no independent witnesses, and so usually it would just be wise to close the case. However, what is interesting is that if you consider the statements of every official commenting on this scandal you would realize that *there are many contradictions*, and it looks like this is where the media falls short.
Not only has the author nailed down all the so called “reasons” for men to get married, she also *somehow* manages to nail down many of the reasons women get married as well, granted we swap a few pronouns and articles around.
---
The premise of this article is weak. The majority of the points listed are vague and can be applicable to anyone, whether they be a woman or man in the context of marriage.
---
I would agree though that this article reeks of the implication that marriage is overrated. Looks like that is the new popular and progressive opinion on the street these days.
---
What *would* be a delightful read is someone giving me a good treatise on why marriage is overrated and what is the alternative.
---
I do not think this is special information though as none of these points are specifically fascinating or mind blowing.
Whoever you are are . . . I can easily tell you are both knowledgeable and wise since you understand the times so well.
--- Many of or *“educated”* folk have already been tainted with many different philosophies that they believe will bring in this great panacea thereby solving all of our problems. However, these so called *“educated”* approaches only serve to multiply further moral and social degeneration, especially when considering the long term results.
--- You make an *excellent distinction* between what makes a country a “developed country”. It is not moral superiority or social superiority but, financial superiority. Many of our students who go abroad fail to have this basic knowledge, or remember this vital fact. They pick up many new and strange ideas, wrongly attributing that this idea is what makes the country successful.
---
What you *state* as opinion, I *propose* are facts. These developed countries are moral cesspools, elevating degeneration through misrepresentation of the idea and intent of human rights. I am currently seeking a degree in one of them and believe me, the moral decay is frightening.
---
The *elemental difference* between The Bahamas and these developed countries is *financial stability*. These developed countries can still operate even under gross moral and social degeneration because they have the financial resources to mask the problem, very similar to how our author proposes the use of condoms in schools.
---
We *do not have* the money to prop up the problem and we surely do not have the monetary backing to compensate for moral and social degeneration.
---
Here is a fact that most people do not like to hear; *It was not intelligence that built your country,* it was the wisdom of the nuclear family. **Intelligence is simply the result of a successful society and not the solution that leads to a successful society**.
---
For further reading, consider searching for an essay written by Sir John Glubb called “The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival”. This essay emulates many of your concerns as seen in many of the failed empires throughout history. What you question is just but one element.
**There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the ruler: I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth.**
> *Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them.*
Solomon says...
It seems it was my mistake to even reply to your comment. You took my example as a fact of changing the scenario when it was meant to **act as an analogy** to highlight the **importance of context**. Did you even read everything that I wrote?
---
There is nothing more to say really, my post actually supports your initial thoughts while highlighting the flawed logic in asserting that there was no threat simply **from one statement posted in this article.** This whole scandal could very well be a whole lot of nothing since there does not seem to be a way to substantiate the truth in these verbal statements.
---
As you said yourself "This starting to look more and more like too much about nothing".
On Newbold denies Gomez claims
Posted 18 May 2015, 8:18 p.m. Suggest removal
Solomon says...
Your logic is actually flawed but for a different reason. The conclusion you reach is based on a *pure definition* of the word ‘threat’ - *this is your flawed premise*. I would agree that with this premise, Mr. Newbold's statement does not constitute a threat. The only problem though, is that you are not considering the *context of the situation*.
---
For example, if a man points a gun at you and says “John, If you don’t understand Family Island administration, I would make it easy for you” - then this would be a threat with the intention of death. The presence of a gun gives sufficient context to modify the meaning of the statement.
---
In the same way, one could also argue quite reasonably two things when considering the context in this article. First of all, the statement ‘if I don’t understand Family Island administration, he would make it easy for me’ *gives the implied meaning* of Mr. Newbold *being incompetent in his administration job*.
---
Secondly, the statements are made ‘in [a] harsh sounding tone as if he was angry’, further modifying the meaning, so much so, that If you were in Mr. Newbold’s shoes at that moment, it would sound as if you were being threatened *with the intention of losing your position!*
---
Naturally, the problem with this whole fiasco is that it devolves into two witnesses who are both involved (he say, she say). There seems to be no independent witnesses, and so usually it would just be wise to close the case. However, what is interesting is that if you consider the statements of every official commenting on this scandal you would realize that *there are many contradictions*, and it looks like this is where the media falls short.
On Newbold denies Gomez claims
Posted 18 May 2015, 4:08 p.m. Suggest removal
Solomon says...
Not only has the author nailed down all the so called “reasons” for men to get married, she also *somehow* manages to nail down many of the reasons women get married as well, granted we swap a few pronouns and articles around.
---
The premise of this article is weak. The majority of the points listed are vague and can be applicable to anyone, whether they be a woman or man in the context of marriage.
---
I would agree though that this article reeks of the implication that marriage is overrated. Looks like that is the new popular and progressive opinion on the street these days.
---
What *would* be a delightful read is someone giving me a good treatise on why marriage is overrated and what is the alternative.
---
I do not think this is special information though as none of these points are specifically fascinating or mind blowing.
On POLITICOLE: Why men get married
Posted 17 March 2015, 8:44 p.m. Suggest removal
Solomon says...
Whoever you are are . . . I can easily tell you are both knowledgeable and wise since you understand the times so well.
---
Many of or *“educated”* folk have already been tainted with many different philosophies that they believe will bring in this great panacea thereby solving all of our problems. However, these so called *“educated”* approaches only serve to multiply further moral and social degeneration, especially when considering the long term results.
---
You make an *excellent distinction* between what makes a country a “developed country”. It is not moral superiority or social superiority but, financial superiority. Many of our students who go abroad fail to have this basic knowledge, or remember this vital fact. They pick up many new and strange ideas, wrongly attributing that this idea is what makes the country successful.
---
What you *state* as opinion, I *propose* are facts. These developed countries are moral cesspools, elevating degeneration through misrepresentation of the idea and intent of human rights. I am currently seeking a degree in one of them and believe me, the moral decay is frightening.
---
The *elemental difference* between The Bahamas and these developed countries is *financial stability*. These developed countries can still operate even under gross moral and social degeneration because they have the financial resources to mask the problem, very similar to how our author proposes the use of condoms in schools.
---
We *do not have* the money to prop up the problem and we surely do not have the monetary backing to compensate for moral and social degeneration.
---
Here is a fact that most people do not like to hear; *It was not intelligence that built your country,* it was the wisdom of the nuclear family. **Intelligence is simply the result of a successful society and not the solution that leads to a successful society**.
---
For further reading, consider searching for an essay written by Sir John Glubb called “The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival”. This essay emulates many of your concerns as seen in many of the failed empires throughout history. What you question is just but one element.
On Say no to condoms in schools
Posted 17 March 2015, 7:54 p.m. Suggest removal
Solomon says...
*The poor is hated even of his own neighbour: but the rich hath many friends.*
On Crowds march in support of Nygard
Posted 15 July 2014, 12:50 p.m. Suggest removal
Solomon says...
Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished: but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered.
On Hundreds gather for prayer vigil in Fox Hill
Posted 31 December 2013, 12:49 a.m. Suggest removal
Solomon says...
**There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the ruler: I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth.**
On Union praises the government for over-ruling Miller decision on sick pay
Posted 28 November 2013, 1:23 a.m. Suggest removal
Solomon says...
> *Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them.*
On Two more shootings this morning; MP's brother fights for life after teen is shot dead; man murdered playing dominoes
Posted 5 September 2013, 3:20 p.m. Suggest removal
Solomon says...
If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked. Proverbs 29:12 [KJV]
On Cuban abuse claims - marines 'admit' beatings - read extracts and see images from the investigation
Posted 29 August 2013, 12:18 p.m. Suggest removal
Solomon says...
*A man's gift maketh room for him, and bringeth him before great men.*
Proverbs 18:16 KJV
...
On Government silent over Nygard questions
Posted 15 July 2013, 7:51 p.m. Suggest removal