Lee Stoneking Addresses UN

[n david]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

and you prove my point. He was making an address in the Senate, but he was not addressing the members of the senate, therefore he was not addressing the senate because the senators were not actually there.

Even though yes they were in official session.

Conclusion: You can make an address while in official session and not actually address the members of the organization that you are addressing.

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.

[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.

[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

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.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

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.

Wrong again. I posted the claim from blackjohnwhite which started the whole argument. He claimed it wasn't the General Assembly. You're trying to change it to be about the members.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by n david

Wrong again. I posted the claim from blackjohnwhite which started the whole argument. He claimed it wasn't the General Assembly. You're trying to change it to be about the members.

Yeah, I also contend that to address the assembly you have to address the members.

You are claiming "web attendance". <grin> It was a two day event. Let's review footage of the PREVIOUS day.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Yeah, I also contend that to address the assembly you have to address the members.

You are claiming "web attendance". <grin> It was a two day event. Let's review footage of the PREVIOUS day.

UN Source Link

General Assembly Sixty-ninth session

High-level thematic debate on “Promoting Tolerance and Reconciliation: The Potential for Religion in Building Bridges of Tolerance and Reconciliation”

Opening segment: Statement by the Secretary-General of the United Nations
09:00 General Assembly Hall

Plenary meeting: Statements by religious leaders
09:10 General Assembly Hall