Lee Stoneking Addresses UN

[n david]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

No, a meeting doesn't have to be filled with members in order to be an official session. As exampled by my Ted Cruz note. I hope you don't think I was helping you (except for helping you say the above idiocy)

You've proven my point. The Senate was in session, Cruz was speaking to the Senate regardless of whether or not Senators filled the room.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

It doesn't matter what the title of the meeting was. Nobody attended. If nobody attended, you didn't address anybody. I don't have to prove it was or was not official, I just had to show clear footage that nobody was addressed.

It does matter what the United Nations says it was. Only to you it may not matter. But you don't care for facts or the truth.

You hate what Stoneking did. You hate that Wilson is giving Bible Studies, conducting services and baptizing muslims who also receive the Holy Ghost.

So facts be damned! You will lie, mislead, libel and do anything you can to try and downplay the significance of Stoneking's message to the General Assembly and what is happening at the UN.

People did attend. You're lying if you claim no one did. Also it was broadcasted live via webcast and was available to delegates, member representatives and the general public around the world.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

For someone to address the members the members have to be there.

There you go again, trying to change the argument. You initially claimed it wasn't a meeting of the 69th Session of the General Assembly...now you've changed it to [paraphrase] "the members weren't there so he didn't address the members."

First, the members could have been watching via the live streaming webcast. I can't confirm they did, but you can't claim they didn't.

There were some delegates there.

Also, the argument isn't whether he addressed the members. You're trying to change it to that, but that wasn't the argument. The initial argument was whether this was an official meeting of the General Assembly.

And the UN says it was.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm not going to argue with you. The Senate was in session. He was addressing the Senate regardless of if the Senators were there or not.

Don't be stealing my example. That's what I said. He was addressing the Senate.

Just not the Senators.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by n david

You proven my point. The Senate was in session, Cruz was speaking to the Senate regardless of whether or not Senators filled the room.



It does matter what the United Nations says it was. Only to you it may not matter. But you don't care for facts or the truth.

You hate what Stoneking did. You hate that Wilson is giving Bible Studies, conducting services and baptizing muslims who also receive the Holy Ghost.

So facts be damned! You will lie, mislead, libel and do anything you can to try and downplay the significance of Stoneking's message to the General Assembly and what is happening at the UN.

People did attend. You're lying if you claim no one did. Also it was broadcasted live via webcast and was available to delegates, member representatives and the general public around the world.



There you go again, changing your claim. You initially claimed it wasn't a meeting of the 69th Session of the General Assembly...now you've changed it to [paraphrase] "the members weren't there so he didn't address the members."

First, the members could have been watching via the live streaming webcast. I can't confirm they did, but you can't claim they didn't.

There were some delegates there.

Also, the argument isn't whether he addressed the members. You're trying to change it to that, but that wasn't the argument. The initial argument was whether this was an official meeting of the General Assembly.

And the UN says it was.

Don't be using bad words. No need. Yes they "could have been there". They weren't. If they had been there, they would have been meeting. They weren't. As exampled by all of those empty seats.

Another example: Osama "could have had 40 more wives". But he didn't. LOL

Your new tack: It was available to anyone with an internet - therefore he addressed billions of people. That's funny.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

It is my error in grabbing images that were of different UN meetings in different locations.

yes, but the next time they gather will be September. Which is the best time to "address the UN" since the UN member states will be present to be addressed.

Next you can explain the concept of "addressing the non-present"

Can you prove delegates and member representatives weren't watching via the live streaming webcast?

Didn't think so.

You can continue to howl at the moon and make your baseless claims. The UN says you're wrong, that's all that matters.

You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

So carry on with your lies and misleading posts. The facts and evidence prove you're wrong. It does nothing but show the hate you have towards Stoneking and Wilson...and God, really.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Don't be using bad words. No need. Yes they "could have been there". They weren't. If they had been there, they would have been meeting. They weren't. As exampled by all of those empty seats.

President of the General Assembly was there.
Secretary General of the United Nations was there.
Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations was there.

It was streamed live online and accessible to delegates and member representatives.

Per the UN, it was an official meeting of the 69th Session of the General Assembly.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Your new tack: It was available to anyone with an internet - therefore he addressed billions of people. That's funny.

Never said that, did I?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Don't be stealing my example. That's what I said. He was addressing the Senate.

Just not the Senators.

Again, the initial argument was NOT about the members, it was whether it was an official meeting of the General Assembly.

Stoneking was addressing a meeting of the 69th Session of the General Assembly, which was presided over by the Secretary General of the UN, the Assistant Secretary of the UN and the President of the General Assembly, and which was available to view online via webcast.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by n david

If members attended every meeting of each Session of the General Assembly, they would have to live in NYC.

Excellent point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_Nations

Wiki has a nice cool updated list of the UN delegates from all sorts of places.

SO: Where indeed do these (diplomats) live?

Do you know?

I know where our diplomats here live. They live.......here. LOL............

[n david]

The muslim is like most liberals I know. When they finally figure out they can't argue facts and evidence, they try changing the initial argument.

The initial argument was made here:

Originally Posted by blackjohnwhite

This wasn't the General Assembly.

And it continues til now. Again, the initial argument wasn't about the members being present, as the muslim is trying to change it to. It was about whether or not this was an official meeting of the General Assembly.

As I've proven using UN official documents and its website, this was indeed an official meeting of the 69th Session of the General Assembly.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by n david

Again, the initial argument was NOT about the members, it was whether it was an official meeting of the General Assembly.

Stoneking was addressing a meeting of the 69th Session of the General Assembly, which was presided over by the Secretary General of the UN, the Assistant Secretary of the UN and the President of the General Assembly, and which was available to view online via webcast.

No, the discussion was whether it was actually a meeting (any meeting) of the General Assembly or just a handful of members. There was never any challenge to what the title of the meeting was (see page like two for what Stoneking said contrasted with what the intent of the meeting was). The issue was that there was nobody at the meeting.

[Esaias]

How many views is video up to now?

Somebody once said "there is no such thing as bad advertising" or something to that effect.