Reply #28: In answering the phone, one would be looking for noise from the other end [View All]

[nolabels]

When I am thinking of answering the phone, I realize the person or machine on the other end is looking or wanting something from me. In that form and term of psychology, the opening line is the most critical only if the other side is not more needy.

Keep in mind, the critical, who made the call.

If at the end if one is letting the salesman determine the details of the closing then any other party in the equation must also renegotiate the agreements they had in that cohesion of party of receiving side of the deal.

My conclusion and question would be, are you dealing with puffery or touching the transfer, gird the loins, and remember the frauds first rule is to make one feel foolish to retard or retract the reaction.
F U *

Or you could be looking for the conclusion from someone else, try this one

http://members.tripod.com/~greatamericanhistory/gr02013.htm
Conclusion

Although the majority of the American people-- including many moderate politicians like Abraham Lincoln--wanted to avoid Civil War and were content to allow slavery to die a slow, inevitable death, the most influential political leaders of the day were not. On the southern side, "fire-eaters" like Rhett and Yancey were willing to make war to guarantee the propagation of their "right" to own slaves. On the northern side, abolitionists like John Brown and Henry Ward Beecher of Connecticut were willing to make war in order to put an immediate end to the degrading institution of slavery.

These leaders, through either words or action, were able to convince the majority that it was necessary to go to war, and in order to convince them they justified the war with arguments that only indirectly referred to the subject of slavery (i.e., state rights et. al.).

Southern politicians convinced their majority that the North was threatening their way of life and their culture. Northern politicians convinced their majority that the South, if allowed to secede, was really striking a serious blow at democratic government. In these arguments, both southern and northern politicians were speaking the truth--but not "the whole truth." They knew that to declare the war to be a fight over slavery would cause a lot of the potential soldiers of both sides to refuse to fight.

So-was the war about slavery? Absolutely. If there had been no disagreement over the issue of slavery, the South would probably not have discerned a threat to its culture and the southern politicians would have been much less likely to seek "their right to secede." But was it only about slavery? No. It was also about the constitutional argument over whether or not a state had a right to leave the Union, and--of primary concern to most southern soldiers--the continuation of antebellum southern culture. Although the majority of Southerners had little interest in slaves, slavery was a primary interest of Southern politicians--and consequently the underlying cause of the South's desire to seek independence and state rights.

This has been my attempt at providing a brief, balance answer to a complicated subject which has been the subject of many books. For further reading, I suggest Kenneth Stampp's Causes of the Civil War.
(snip)