I am amaze that you will reply to
"Mostwanted5125" remarks - {in Italics} - into your
present reply to my last response ?
If I am petty, I would look
at this as an added insult to the verbal assault towards
"common sense" that you have preferred to adopt from the moment
that you registered your "nick".- which is further seen in your
wilful ways in arguing against common sense.
I am even more surpirsed that you
will see this as a test of patience, when you have persisted
in using idiocy to prove your position.
Can there be any objectivity in
this exercise to prove your idiocy is wrong, when you insist
on its correctness ?
Who had wrote a law saying tat I cannot reply to another person
within the same reply ? The message actually is for u to see and
the important point is to reduce verbal abuses.
However u completely skip tis main point and jump to silly issues
like reply to 2 people within the same reply or just insult my
log in name. U really lost objectivity and u act just like a turtle
snapping on anything. It is a surprise u refuse to treat yourself
and act like a gentleman and prefer to become a low class person
working only on verbal abuses
I would not put it pass you to
understand good manners and simple courtesy, judging by your
expertise in debunking conventional wisdom by twisting
even your kind of logic on its head.
Since there are no 'laws'
that you will respect except those that you create - or those that
you find convenient to take shelter when necessary, it is not
surprising that you will expect me to follow your kind of "Law
in Stupidity is Smart" - when my arguments raised do not
conform to your way of thinking.
Am I merely repeating or are you
not repeating the fact that your "Theory" is related to "the
whole idea" that I have presented ? Is there anything wrong with
this fact being repeated ? Was it not about this paragraph
itself that you got it wrong from the start claiming it to be
a "theory" - and attributing this "theory" to be my creation
?
I can see why u just keep saying the same thing over and over
again. Tis is because u have nothing else to talk about. I already
said tat the "theory", is your idea which is pasted in blue. U
agree in here tat I am mentioning your "theory", if u prefer,
"idea" as mentioning tis paragraph.
Has it not always been
your wish to insist that I have nothing else to talk but to accept
the stupidity that you have propounded so vigorously in your
insisted position, and to simply be dismissive of my arguments
concerning this point about whose "Theory" it has always been
?
The pent-up social pressures
may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when
social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll
out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political
swings that are unpredictable.
Now
the only problem is, u do not like the word "theory" to be used for
tis idea but instead prefer the word "idea". I got to ask, why the
word "theory" cannot be used to describe the blue worded paragraph
?
Was it about the word "Theory"
alone, or the entire statement in your claim made from reading my
paragraph ?
Attempting to dodge the issue by
micro-arguments and prolonging the issue has been your style across
these last 8 pages - now that we have gone into Pg
9.
How did you so brilliantly
conclude in your own "theory tat singapore gonna implode"
from the paragraph that you have so diligently quoted from me and
shown in Italics without mistake - when compared to what you
have written further down your reply that I will
address accordingly ?
For the moment, it is your own
"theory tat singapore gonna implode" - and it is
ridiculous, formed from your "wild guesses" after reading my
paragraph - and this is the crux of the argument that continue to
fester as you dodge this issue by creating more issues, as seen in
the text of the next paragraph in your reply...
I
have already stated many times tat u have concluded tat singapore
is not political stable in future and it results in CEO making
significant risk in singapore so much so tat it is worse the china
in terms of risk. Tis is looking into the future which u cannot do.
Then wat is wrong with the use of the word "theory". The despicable
thing u do it simply to ignore tis point repeatedly. R u ashamed
tat u cannot answer tis point and tat is why u shamelessly ignore
it ?
What point have I not been able to
answer and ignored - or has my answer been too inconvenient for
your purpose in perpetuating the lie that you prefer to make out of
what I have presented in my replies ?
Can no one look into the
future - even in the form or format that you have
insisted ?
Only you will not wish to make any
predictions of any future - even concerning how smart you can
be, given your satisfaction in your status quo.
Do you think that sane persons
will not look at their present situation, form some judgment of the
present circumstances, and make a decision to
"estimate" the likely outcome in the future ?
Are you not expecting CEO to make
similar effort to "look into the future" based on
the known and existing risks level and estimate the
outcome for their various investments in any country ? {Perhaps it
is a wrong question given to you, as you have no CEO talent or
skills to give such a reply.??? }
The point with the word "Theory"
is that you have attributed the conclusion in the manner that you
prefer to be mine, when the ACTUAL interpretation
is your own, in your unique belief that the "theory tat singapore gonna
implode" - from your own preferred conclusion
formed by reading with your own preferred color visions
from my paragraph formed by words that are clearly and simply
printed.
Have
I only attacked your preferred word - "implosion" - and
nothing else ?
Again, another dishonest attempt
to make yourself look like the victim - by simply confusing two
separate issues into one ?
Hmm... yes tat is the only thing u r talking
about and despite me answering many times, u just continue to talk
about nothing but "implosion" and treat it as though it is a great
deal. U can read back your response on tis paragraph and frankly
speaking u only talk about the choice of the word "implosion". In
tis reply, u also never stated wat other things u had mentioned. If
u wanted me to respond, then u have to state out wat is your other
point
This is the kind of
"Stupid-is-Smart" dishonesty in extracting lines out of context to
suit your own mischevious agenda to confuse the main
issue.
My reply that you have now
responded consist of five paragraphs, of which you have extracted
two paragraphs and addressed it with your reply that is
out-of-context - and this is not the first time you have done
so.
In quoting out of context, and
making your skewed reply, you had deliberately ignored the fact
that my reply was an on-going exchange with you on the other issues
that you have expanded around your statement in your "theory
tat singapore gonna implode"
Was it simply inconvenient for
your own plot to debunk my position, by adopting a dishonest way of
extracting partially what I have written, and quoting me in full
when it is convenient ?
How
did you so brilliantly conclude from "my paragraph" that Singapore
will implode - which you intend to mean as "collapse" - as seen
from your own given definition ?
Now, you are again being exposed
for your dishonesty by making
a "false lie" in your statement - The bottomline is I
never claim singapore is gonna "collapse".
Yes I do give the definition of "implosion" and so ? In the
sentence I have clearly stated tat it is YOUR idea tat is it gonna
"implode" and I conclude it as WILD GUESS. And u can claim I say
singapore is gonna collapse ? Wat happened to your grammer ? How
can anyone who pass english in PSLE ever make such a mistake ? If u
want to prove I claim tat, then please interprete tis statement
instead of just focusing on a word.
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna
implode is probably just wild guesses
U see, u chose the words "krakatoa volcanic eruption", a
description of a great catastrophic in nature, conclude singapore
is gonna have poor political stability, even worse in china and tat
make all the CEOs tat had invested here to be in trouble over their
failed investment.
Then now u say I am the one claiming singapore is collapsing
because I chose the word "implosion".
Tis is just lame
Was it lame on my part, or
have you not hit the nail on its head for what you have done and
making nonsensical excuse for your very poor conclusion
?
Was it "Karakatoa volcanic
eruption" in
my paragraph, or have you now deliberately changed - my
"Karakatoa volcanic outburst" - to suit
your own agumentative agenda to smoke your way out ?
Were you not the one who
volunteered the definition of the word "implosion" that included
the description as "collapse" - and even gave the description of
how a submarine hull will collapse from external pressures
?
If your choice of the word
"implode" or "implosion" does not mean "collapse" - despite your
volunteered description - what did you intend to mean ?
My choice in the metaphor -
"Karakatoa volcanic outburst" - is totally different from your
"implosion" which implies "total
DESTRUCTIVE collapse".
I did ask you - "why did you
not ask me, what could be my intended meaning for the
"Karakatoa volcanic
outburst" ?
Unfortunaely, you ignored my
good advise; as probably you would have "guessed" that it
must lead you - to see your preferred "theory
tat singapore gonna implode" to be looking silly, and
will require you to backdown.
Lame ? Surely you need more then a
crutch to get out of your self-imploded injury ?
Was this part of my reply on Pg 8 30Jul'08-5.13AM
?
Tat is part of your reply on 10 Jul 123
Do you seriously think that
Singapore is politically more stable than China - if you
believe that China's corruption will lead to instability
?
The pent-up social pressures
may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and
political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of
Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are
unpredictable.
It is the unpredictable and
the unknown that will posed a bigger risk to CEO of large
companies, and with the strong hand of the Government to prevent
citizens from voicing their various social and political
frustrations, every Election will be a major problem for the
incumbent political party.
Theory: Tis is a theory since u r predicting the future which u
cannot do and thus tis is not the truth. It is a guess or
conjunction. If u felt it is not a guess, then u have to prove with
hard evidence tat the events listed in "implode" is
certain to happen
Implode: U claim singapore will suffer a severe setback in
future so much so tat it can be as catastrophic as a volcanic
eruption tat resulted into bigger risk for its investors and
singapore being less politically stable than china. To me, a
definitive single word is difficult to describe for tis
failure and therefore I choose "implosion" since it has an idea of
a catastrophic failure. U have a problem with tis ? Why can't
I choose a word I like tat describe tis particular
failure ?
wild guess: I think your "idea" is bullsh!t.
So wat is wrong with the statement ?
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna
implode is probably just wild guesses
If you think that it is
not possible to predict the future - is there any use for any
organisation to make forecasts, or estimates, or expected trends,
or anything similar that require a "prediction into the future"
that will assist in decision making at the present
time ?
My paragraph had clearly stated
the following - "The pent-up
social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when
social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll
out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political
swings that are unpredictable"
Nothing in this paragraph suggest the kind of
social collapse from the kind of destructive implosion as
stated in your own "theory tat singapore gonna
implode".
"Hard evidence" ? Do you need any "hard evidence"
to know what kind of outbursts from pent-up social pressures,
or are you deliberately being lame at your own convenient
choosing ?
Was the "fight" over the word "stability" now
?
Nah... u r forgetting. U started the fight on the word
"unpredictable". U r the one flip flopping and bringing out word by
word for case study.
You must surely be given the
credit for the false modesty in attributing so much of your
own creativity to be mine.
You have already been proven
consistently - for your remarkable skill in taking statements
out-of-context, preferring to misquote, or even ignoring
entire sections of my replies whenever my reply is
inconvenient to your agenda.
Was it not a fact that the
word - "unpredictable" - was left out of your
calculation when you read my paragraph, and leading you
to your very conclusive "theory tat singapore gonna
implode" ?
You did propose to analyse my
statement, but failed to be comprehensive in your
comprehension of your preferred "case study" approach,
nor were you honest with your interpretation of simple
statements.
Were you attempting to be
"gentlemanly" - a term you used further down in some paragraph
in your reply - in twisting logic on its head
?
You have developed an uncanny
skill in arriving at this position, and somehow forgotten what you
have said earlier, and picking out past words only when convenient
to your present hopeless position.
Read your own definition of what
"IMPLOSION" is about.
The choice of words, and the
choice in your conclusion with a theory that was decisive in
its end - were all yours to make from reading my
paragraph.
I don't know about u, but the other people who is really reading
tis is probably laughing at u writing "kakatoa volcanic eruption"
first yet prohibit people from using "implosion". And all u r
talking about now is simply how I should phrase one sentence... Tat
is really just so silly.
Let me ask u. Wat is the message u r trying to drive by writing
so much on tis one sentence ?
As I have said before, only your
own vanity and delusions will lead you to believe that anyone
in SgForums will be interested in reading the wall of text in these
exchanges - as already evident in the statements made by "redDUST"
and "beatiful951" on Pg 9.
Will anyone be laughing at
"kakatoa volcanic eurption", or will you be laughed at for your
mischevious and dishonest efforts to put words in my mouth
?
Were these the words used in my
paragraphs, or were these modified choice of words your own
creation - that led to your own preferred erroneous
conclusion in the "theory tat singapore gonna implode"
?
If accuracy is not your trait,
will you be able to understand the necessity in correcting your
"True Lie" ?
You should be asking yourself what
is the message that you are attempting to pushed by distorting my
paragraph and my intended meaning with your own erroneious
conclusion formed in your "theory tat singapore gonna
implode".
Am I not entitled to make my own
conclusiong by extending ST's remarks ?
If I am wrong to do so, are you
suggesting that you were also similarly wrong in concluding that
"Singapore will implode" ?
U see, u can only talk about "implosion" and nothing else. And
did u manage to prove I had use the word "implosion" wrongly ? U
can't.
Now u claim u r "extending your own conclusion" using ST
remarks, however from below it is clear making the
claims for ST
With the reply from Singapore
Tyrannosaur in Italics that stated very clearly that "political
stability is becoming less of a pull factor given
the rise of China, which makes our stability a less attractive
feature in Asia" - did you not insist for the
reason that CEO will invest in Singapore - with you emphasising
that "China is not considered politically stable since there is
still a high level of corruption" ?
ST claim that "stability is no longer
a pull factor" - while my statement was that "Singapore's
pent up social pressures - will lead to unpredictable political
swings" - and I continued with the following in my reply on Pg 2 of
this thread - which you left out:-
R u ST ? How can u
say ST claims that "stability is no longer a pull factor" when he
never say tat. R u ST's clone ? Wat a joke. It is not u, u cannot
claim for him or use your own conclusion and claim he said
tat. If u humbly accept your error, u will not be so
embarrassed now. And u say I expose my errors ? U mean "implosion"
? Tat is all u can say and u have never proven
it
I see that you are able to see
absolute when it suits you, and will prefer to be murky when it
does not.
How did you discern anywhere in
any words used that I have felt embarrassed ?
You can be quite remarkable in
your abilities at creating nonsense from nothing.
Even if there is an error in my
quote from ST's "stability is becoming less of a pull
factor" to my version of "stability is no longer a pull factor" -
the meaning runs close - if not parallel in meaning - in that
"stability" is no longer an influential factor.
This differs from your
remarkable conclusion "tat singapore will implode" -
when my paragraph contain no such idea, and had suggested only
some predictable outcome.
Are you too "embarrassed" with
such a comparison made, that brought you to bring this word to the
surface ?
So
January 2008 is more recent then the events in June-July 2008
?
Did you not attempt to support JBJ
as your favorite opposition ?
I am surprised that you will wish
for the last nail to be placed on JBJ.
With regards to CSJ' supposed
libel, it is only in the little minds of the LKY's mindless digits
that will see it the way it is programmed.
U mean about
If Singapore is so stable as you will want to
believe, why will this Ruling Political Party be in a
constant state of insecurity to its own political future,
and insist on suppressing the legitimate rights of the Citizens to
raise their voices
They have been doing tis since donkey years.
JBJ is my favourite opposition, and I do not want him to be
"nailed in place". The fact is now, he is not nailed. So how can u
say the gov is in such a high state of insecurity ?
U wana dispute, then dispute la. U already extend the reply so
long, wat is, with a few more passages ?
JBJ your favorite opposition
?
Is any opposition worthy of being
your favorite, when your attitude towards the Opposition in
politics has been so clearly expressed on Pg of this thread
?
[Quote]
Given me a
choice
a) Restricted rights on
opposition but stable governence promote economic
growth
b) Good individual rights but
economic outlook bleak and instability
I choose to be
in category A 
I don't believe democracy
works anyway
[UnQuote]
The
most suitable word to describe your person for such skillful
duplicity is - "Hypocrite".
Did you not conclude that
Singapore will "implode" - and by your definition - "collapse"
?
Did you prove yourself to be
correct in your "claim" that you were correct in interpreting "tat
singapore gonna implode" by reading my paragraph ?
Arrr... u see u can only link back to the "implosion" argument.
Otherwise u have nothing else to say.
Why pretend to be the victim
?
Were you not attempting to
use your "itch" analogy to explain away your
"theory tat singapore gonna implode" - when at the
same time you will not conclude for 'China's
instability with the high level of corruption to suffer the same
consequences ?
Was it not a fact that you were
deliberately deceitful continuing with your "True Lie" - from Pg 2
through Pg 4 - in making
your statements insisting - "tat singapore gonna
implode" from reading my statement about "pent-up social
pressures leading to some karakatoa volcanic outburst" - Yet you
can only conclude with Hu's statement of "china's high level of
corruption" to "china screwing up big time" in backtracking of
orders, and patent rights abuses - when Hu's concern was with the
high level of corruption left unchecked will lead to china's
collapse.
China's ability to thrive despite
the corruption was due to the fact that actions were already taken
to nab the big fishes, and that corruption persist in China's
society based on a lower profile unlike in the past.
Again another lie u have made. I had already stated tis before
in 1.4 before
What is the basis of your analysis that there
is a high level of corruption in China ?
Is it not your own wild guessing that you
depend in attempting to "look at the situation anaylytically"
?
When I explained that it is not a wild guess and
even Hu Jintao acknowledged to the problem, u begin to attack on me
claiming I have made a conclusion on china collapse. And the line
is
They can screw u up big time as they can
backtrack on their previous promises or copy all your design and
sell in another name. U can see such symptoms like opposition
favourite example of suzhou industrial park or the LV factory
there.
This sentence merely say tat business tat invested
in china faces probems before such as backtracking of promises
(suzhou industrial park) and copy of design and sell it in another
name (LV). There is no statement here
tat claimed china is gonna collapse. "They" in the statement
represent china official and "u" represent a fake CEO which u
implied yourself to be. There is no other way u can understand from
the above statement. I have been pointing out tis fact
repeatedly but u r just not honest and sincere in your debate and
just repeat and repeat without reading at
all.
And wat is your answer. U want to force me to make a
conclusion tat I state China is collapsing which I repeatedly
refuse and stated my stand. After tis u just repeat back the same
old thing again. Aren't u simply a waste of time
?
Was it about your statement that
said China will collapse - or was it not about the failure in your
ability to treat the subject matter equally - as seen in your
statement ?
[Quote]
I think your
theory tat singapore
is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses. Lets
look at the situation analytically now without making wild guesses
on the future. In china, there is a high level of corruption. They
can screw u up big time as they can backtrack on their previous
promises or copy all your design and sell in another
name.
[UnQuote]
On
one hand you claimed that it was my "theory tat singapore is
gonna implode" - "based on wild guesses" when it was your own
preferred interpretations of my paragraph - that mentioned nothing
close to your conclusion with "implosion".
On
the other hand, you claimed similar severity in China's high level of
corruption - based on Hu Jin Tao's statements - and conclude
that China's position is worst then Singapore position for
investments, as China level of corruption leads to copyright
infringement.
Why
did you not extend Hu Jin Tao's concern that if China's corruption
is left unchecked, it will lead to the collapse of China
?
Was
it not simply due to the fact that it was inconvenient for
your purpose to project Singapore's stability to attract investment
?
I
showed you that despite all your claims of China's instability due
to high level of corruption and your preferred side-effects in
copyright infringements - China is still able to attract
a larger FDI, as Hu Jin Tao and his Government has taken strong
actions to reverse the corruption situation in
China.
You
claimed in your own "theory of Singapore's collapse by
implosion", but will not extend the
same weightage from reading Hu's statement concerning
corruption.
An
end point that you claim is irrelevant for you to
conclude - as stated in your reply on Pg 7 18 Jul'08-5.45PM. but
will instead digress to another conclusion claiming China's
inability to respect contracts, will back-track and renegade on
deals made that leads to copyright infringements.
That
has been my statement since Pg 3 - is there any use for your
insistence in repeatedly re-defining your postion
?
At least, you have used the word -
important" with the word "stability" - so many times, that it has
allowed me to clearly form the conclusion that it is an
important factor for your position.
Am I being difficult, or have
you now decide to be hones about your own deliberate
attempt at pushing idiocy to its limits - to be
purposefully difficult yourself ?
Tat is right it is important. But
tis is different from "most important". Since u claim "implosion"
is a mistake, and u said the below
No you did not use the exact words
"most important" - and neither did I use the exat word
- "imploded".
Since u appear to classify them as the same sort
of mistake, r u confessing u make a mistake here
?
Was
there a mistake made, or are you not
being anxious to nail a mistake on me
?
Is
this not due to your desparation in seeing your position being
slowly revealed to be weak due to your dishonesty
?
One
thing is clear from this exchange - it shows your creativity in
dodging - by being exact when it suits you, and attempt
to be murky when it does not.
Clearly it confirms your dishonest
character.
It
began with you throwing a challenge in questioning that no CEO
will invest in Zimbabwe, and I showed that you had no CEO
talent to be in any position to take any decision to invest in
Zimbabwe, and showed that even China will invest in Zimbabwe like
Singapore Inc does globally. You disputed the fact that even China
will invest in Zimbabwe and Congo, and facts were presented - which
got you to reject these as being State investment that are
incomparable to private Corporate
investments.
And wat is my reply which u
repeatedly refuse to answer ?
I pointed out to u
repeatedly tat china is a powerful country and had more leverage
compared with an ordinary company such as providing arms, UN veto,
south african influence and many others. U did not mention on the
contrast of powers and dwell instead on whether will china attack
or not.
Why r u avoiding the points
in red ? I have pasted them repeatedly for many times and u refuse
to answer them. Why ? The above r important points and u just
ignoring them is simply low class
Are
you becoming deluded ?
Is
there any print in red in all your three replies posted on Pg
8, with none appearing even in your replies on Pg 7
?
Have
I avoided replying any one of your points, or has it not been the
case that you prefer not to quote me exactly, but will prefer to
take my statement out-of-context for your replies, or simply ignore
whole sections of my replies - all done to suit your own arguments
to make your position solid in being "Stupid-is-Smart"
?
Now I moved on to show you
that even private UK companies have planned or even returned
to trade in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe - and you bring up
the subject that EU sanctions will stop these from
happening.
And wat is wrong with it ? If u
invest in such a place, u will face risks and these companies r
facing them now. Isn't tat a point tat show the importance of
political stability ? Do not forget, u claim POLITICAL
STABILITY IS NOT A PULLING POINT. Tis is the real argument
we r having
Yes,
despite the risks in Zimbabwe - I have shown that British Companies
are willing to return to invest in Zimbabwe - DESPITE the Political
Instability in Zimbabwe.
Does
this not prove to you that "POLITICAL STABILITY IS NOT A PULLING
FACTOR" ?
What
are you attempting to reply here ?
Have
you not proven yourself again to be ingenious by being
"out-of-point" in your reply - as seen in the contents of your
second paragraph - shown above ?
Did I mention anywhere that EU is
the entire world, or is this not another of your juvenile outburst
in throwing another tantrum when you have already been
cornered ?
Did I not mention tat your examples r all from EU or US, both
setting sanction on Zimbabwe ? So wat shining examples r u
providing ?
This
again show your deluded manner in arguing your position by
confusing the issues.
Do
you even understand your own position taken ?
Or
have you got lost in your own genius after becoming too
tired with your many dubious positions taken - in
continuously attempting to make the issues more murky - by
inaccurately interpreting the selectively chosen
paragraphs for you to reply in the usual "out-of-context"
manner ?
Are the companies that invest in
Zimbabwe MAFIA, loan sharks, murderers, kidnappers - when you have
also decided to accept that China does invest in Zimbabwe and
Congo, and the three UK companies that I have given in my
references are more respectable then your claims. {Did you not
mention somewhere earlier that you will normally provide proof
before making any claims ?}
With less and less countries
prepared to trade with Zimbabwe, do you believe that Robert Mugabe
will not treasure those who will be prepared to put money into
Zimbabwe ?
Well, u know u can always help to launder money for
murderers, mafia, loah sharks, kidnappers, corrupt
officers and they will really treasure u since lesser
people r willing to deal with them.
I am saying Zimbabwe appears
like the mafia, loan sharks, murderers and kidnappers. U know the
Zimbabwe gov literally use force to threathen the people, kill
oppositions, kidnaps people and confiscate territiories. Poor
comprehensive skill on your part again
One thing for sure is, the UK and
China companies u provide r arms traffickers. And the evidence is
in the report u provided
Not
too clever at attempting to wriggle your way out of your own
trap.
As I
had stated before - you say alot without saying anything, and will
need to redefine everything that you did not say the first time,
even when you have said it so clearly.
Are
you attempting to confuse your presentation by adopting the
"blue color" that I have used to clearly distinguish my
replies from yours ?
Does one need to see your words
"most important" printed before understanding how important
the "political stability" is to your argumentative position
?
From
all the replies u have quoted, I have never claim it is the "most
important" factor. U also agree I never claim it is the
"most important" factor. Then wat do u base on to say I claim it is
the "most important" factor ? Nothing. It is again your lousy
conclusion and seeing how u conclude ST's statement, we all know
how good u can conclude. I already given u the analogy of a
geography teacher telling his students geography is an important
subject repeatedly. Ist tat equal to him claiming geography is the
MOST important subject ? Something is really wrong with
u
Now
you are confirming your ability at being "Stupid-is-Smart"
.
Do I
need to go through the excercise again - by rehashing what you have
preferred to understand, but will not accept the other parts that
are simply too embarrassing for your position
?
It
may do you good, as you have avoided quoting the full text in your
replies on this point alone - and will
continuously prefer to make some vague statements and claims,
deliberately confusing the issue by hiding in the absence of the
full text.
[Quote]
How many times and in how many
different ways must you express a point before someone must
take note that the point you made is surely pivotally
important - an "all important primary factor" ? The
following days have seen your statements that included your
constant reiteration of "political stability" is important in one
way or in some other ways.
Pg 3 - 10Jul'08 9.48PM:-
"I said political stability is
an important consideration and CEO being risk taker
don't purposely take risk as well "
Pg 4 - 11Jul'08
11.13PM:- " I am trying to point to the fact
tat singapore attract companies over for their political stability. And tis
is something u refuse to answer. U can ask all the
companies why they invest in singapore and
they will state
political stability. It is completely relevant and
not just wild guesses "
Pg 4 - 12Jul'08
11.37AM:- "Because u do not believe tat singapore political
stability is a pulling factor for industries to
come over. U felt the political stability does nothing at all in
attracting industries over. Tat obviously is ridiculous and if
u persist in tat stand, u have to justify it. U did not and u just
say it as though it is a wild guess"
Pg 5 -
13Jul'08 12.32PM:- " Political stability = reliability and
predictability. It is particularly
important for high investments low labour
business such as oil refinery, semiconductor and biomedical
companies. "
Do I need to arrive
at your level of idiocy to hazard a guess at how much
"importance" you have placed on "political stability" - without you
needing to say that it is THE primary factor
?
You surely
displayed a very comprehensive skill at being a
liar, to pretend that you actually comprehend your own
lie.
[UnQuote]
The conclusion remains the same -
you do
not need to say exactly that "political stability"
is "THE Most Important" factor - but reading enough of the
points made about "poitical stability" and the various shades of
importance that you insist on this point alone - it does not take
any genius "Stupid-is-Smart" thinker to know how much
stupidity you prefer to argue over this point that 'Political
Stability" is a critical point in your scheme of
things.
Singapore investors have invested in Myanmar,
Indoneisa, and Thailand, and had gone into Vietnam in the period
when UN sanctions had just lifted after Vietnam withdrew from
Cambodia. Even BP continue to invest in Russia despite its
legal tangles with the Putin Government, Total had gone into Iran
despite the abhorrtent rule of the Ayatollahs, and we see companies
scrambling to enter Indonesia and even buying up their fund-starved
banks. I have already shown that there are companies prepared
to invest in Zimbabwe and Congo, and Singaporeans
have even invested in crime prone South Africa; while others
have gone into Ghana, Ivory Coast, Mozambique.
Finally u r talking about something more relevant to the
discussion.
I agree with u tat there r people who invest in countries tat r
starting up. However, they do not purposely invest in these places
because it is politically unstable. They do it because there r many
other major benefits such as new economy starting up, cheap, new
market and many other benefits tat attract business. However tis
doesn't mean political
stability is not important. For business like long
term high capital intensive industries, political stability is
an important factor to look up for. I have already said before.
Singapore do attract a niche market for such industries.
Have you finally awaken from your
stupor to recognise what has been said in the preceding pages in
different forms ?
Yet, you showed your brilliance by
re-interpreting your understanding by making an ingenious
qualification that is totally irrelevant in suggesting that
"investors do not purposelly invest in places because it is
politically unstable".
How would you
know that investors will
not "purposefully" invest in places because it is politically
unstable when you have no entrepreneurial talent of a
CEO ?
Again, you repeat that "political
stability" is an "important factor" - and this had been
repeated at each and every opportunity given to you, and yet you
can be hypocritical to claim that you have never claimed
"Political
Stability" to be the 'MOST IMPORTANT
FACTOR".
Should I be amazed at your
dishonesty by now ?
You will demand to be shown
where in your statements made will contain the exact words
"most important
factor", which is nothing more then my conclusion from
your many statements that insist on "political stability to be
important".
Yet, you will allow yourself
the free space to conclude in YOUR "theory tat singapore gonna
implode" when these words do not exist in my statements, and
are purely your own "wild guesses".
If you demand accuracy for the
exact words to appear in your paragraph - why are you not
exercising the same standard of accuracy to yourself when
intepreting mine ?
Another prime example of a
"Hypocrite" ?
You missed out whole paragraphs
that debunked your views - as in the quoted piece concerning the
"MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS" that you have placed in "political
stability" - but will make a useless reply to a paragraph that was
intended for your earlier statement that had no value in
itself.
Which r the whole paragraph tat U claimed I had missed ? As
said, most of your writing r too long and also contain nothing
but insults and tat is why I choose a paragaraph out of the
few and reply to it. If u find tat I am not replying to any
important points, then list it out. I answer ALL your queries. U
never answer any of mine
Another rich display of your
characteristic lame excuses ?
Any way this matter has been
addressed in the paragraphs above.
Was there a dispute about the fact
that NOT everybody is right minded ?
Then I have to say tat there will be a lot of false
claims tat can disrupt society. Tis is not desirable
Have you not been making a lot of
false claims ?
Are you not the prime candidate as
an illustration for your stated claims based on your
self-acclaimed expertise on this point ?
For one who depend on hard facts
- evidences, what is the basis of you conclusion in your
preferred statement made ?
I had already stated much
earlier that you represent one who is surely not "right
minded" based on your choice in your "nick" = then again, you
ignored this point.
Tis is nothing but a verbal abuse and u consider tat as a point
? U r really drained
Were you too embarrassed for
the idiocy that had been exposed in this reply that you refused to
quote in full that had referred to your last response being
addressed ?
Obviously you have nothing to
retort with, when faced with the idiocy in your last reply that was
clearly highlight in my response.
The statement that I have made is
clear enough, and it is for you to make your preferred conclusion
as to what has been written.
Then i can conclude u r shallow and low class enough to just
verbal abuse people due to their log in name.
Shallow ? Low Class
?
Only you will know the true
meanings of these words that you have been wallowing in, as seen in
the quality of the supreme idiocy that you indulge with when making
all of your replies.
With or without the word "almost"
- your position remains the same. Is there any difference in
belaboring the point ?
There is a difference. With the word almost,
it is
absolute which is clearly wrong. With the word
"almost", it is no longer
absolute and it becomes right. Wat have u got say
about the below para then ? U made an error and pass it to me,
aren't u the one passing the credit ?
So you intend to dodge your
own error in claiming that I have made the statement,
simply with a single missing word "almost" from your
original statement which you have made but prefer to pass the
credit to me ?
Did I pass any credit to you ?
Surely in attempting to plagiarise my words, you should at least
make some effort to do the same with some finesse
?
Even in attempting to explain the
difference with and
without the word "almost" - you have already
shown the idiocy in your thought process. Are you drained
?
I will not repeat the
idiocy in your confused lines but will highlight your
statement as shown above.
You may wish to say again
what you have not said, and redefine what you had intended to say
but did not say, perhaps when you are finished saying what you had
intended, hopefully you know what you had wanted to say without
saying.
That is your own preferred
conclusion based on your own perverse
thinking ?
If no one opposes your manner of
arugment, does that mean you are perpetually correct ?
Is not true ? Then I expect a reply from u otherwise i will
record it as another flip flop u had made
I put in number form again
2.9.1) In the protest by the south korean on the US beef issue,
50,000 protest on the street regularly tat lead to resignation of
certain gov officials and prompted the president to apologise
repeatedly
2.9.2) U claim tat there r more right minded people because
there r more people tat do not protest than people who do
2.9.3) However people who do not protest doesn't mean they agree
with the president. Tis group of people r considered to be unknown,
and not automatically classified as beef supporters and right
minded. They can very well be againstthe president and against the
beef issue
2.9.4) Tis is confirmed by u claiming tat right minded people
will stand up against the lies and false claims made by other
people.
2.9.5) Fact is, nobody make a counter protest against the beef
protesters. It is 50,000 compared with 0
Has it now been convenient for you
to repeat your useless statements simply to suit your insisted
agenda, but somehow you have not been able to repeat
accurately what was stated in my replies when the truth
become too embarrassing for you. ?
If you wish to practise idiocy in
winning an argument, should I help you to go deeper to your level
of idiocy to convince you that you are wrong ?
If you cannot accept what has been
stated in my replies and persist in thinking that 50,000 protesting
South Koreans have caused 2 or 3 Ministers to resign,
without the majority of the population openly counter-protesting
the 50,000 - and thus you are right that there are NO right minded
people in Korea, you are most welcome to your preferred
idiocy.
Do I need to prove myself to be
right to a genius in idiocy, or help in proving myself to be
wrong ?
Only a true genious like you will
not believe that the main population of
NON-protesting Koreans are right minded - for
deciding not to counter protest, as they will
surely know that open confrontation will result
in Koreans hurting Koreans
Is it 50,000 vs Zero - and winner
takes all ?
Only a fool will salivate and
gloat over a pyrrhic victory.
Was there any victory to be seen
in your anxious and desparate decision to claim one at every
opportunity ?
Was this about George Bus and Chen
Shui Bian, or only Presidents ?
The problem with this ongoing
"discussion" is that you refused to accept the situation that you
have been proven to be bankrupt in your values and thought
processes, but will refuse to accept the clear facts presented by
redefining and changing your postion with new clarification and new
arguments.
Is there a need for me to win in
this argument ?
My stand is always tat most people r not right minded. I
have shown the case where presidents, like chen shui bian and
bush, r not right minded. I don't understand why u can claim I
am "bankrupt" in values and thought when u have pin point
nothing.
Based on your perverse
logic, am I to expect you to believe
that LKY is "Stupid" as you attempt to be "Smart"
?
U know wat is really "bakrupt in value" and though processes ? U
bring out the above nonsensical one liner tat tells nothing. I
question why do u not answer my previous point and then u become
all defensive over it. Tat is the real bakrupt
It is not too clever to break up
my reply to you and take each related reply out-of-context - when
the entire reply stand as a piece.
It is not too clever to claim
being victimised when you delibrately messed up my reply by
confusing the issues - by making additional response to
what you missed out in an earlier reply that I had
extracted.
The statement made in my response
to what you have previously posted was clear as daylight - the flow
of our exchage was:-
Quoting from your post on Pg
8 - 30Jul'08-4.28PM
[Extract from my reply on Pg 8 -
31Jul'08-1.40PM ]- which you had made partial reference in your
reply:
Have I insulted your feelings
by mentioning that LKY is stupid when you attempt to be smart; or
are you admitting that the reverse position is correct that
LKY is smarter not believe that being "Stupid-is-Smart" in the
manner that you prefer ?
Was it NOT all about
George Bush-Dick Cheney, and Chen Shui Bian from the beginning to
this stage - as origianlly brought up by you ?
Are you not intending to shift
the goal post as you have found the weakness in the position that
you have cherished across so many pages in this thread
?
Did you not brilliantly ask
the following ?
[Quote]
Almost everybody will lie and make false claims in politics.
Even Presidents can make false claims to support their stand. Bush
himself have asked his advisors to rewrite reports to justify their
stand in attacking Iraq. Chen Shui Bian probably fabricated his own
assasination.
[UnQuote]
Was this about George Bus and
Chen Shui Bian, or only Presidents ?
The problem with this ongoing
"discussion" is that you refused to accept the situation that you
have been proven to be bankrupt in your values and thought
processes, but will refuse to accept the clear facts presented by
redefining and changing your postion with new clarification and new
arguments.
Is there a need for me to win
in this argument ?
Have I shown any desparation
and shouts of "Eureka" in capturing your weak points
?
If at all, I have provoked you
with jabbing facts to make you change your position, and you have
done so once too often, and are you feeling bad that you must bend
over so many times and must retaliate at any reasonable costs
?
[End of the Extract]
Summary:- to this
part of the reply.
You quote one paragraph from my
reply of 31 Jul '08, and mixed your reply with an
additional reply to what you did not say in your reply on 30 Jul
'08 - by extracting what I had quoted from your reply of
30Jul'08.
Do you have more to add to
redefine your position again, and confuse the issues further, by
expanding the past with more issues, and remixing it with the
present ?
Based on your perverse
logic, am I to expect you to believe
that LKY is "Stupid" as you attempt to be "Smart"
?
U r just hurling insults and not answering the question
It is not about whether is george bush, chen shui bian or dick
cheny being right minded. It is about even the US president, Taiwan
president and a high gov officials considered to be not "right
minded". Wat do u think the man on the street fared
? U just refuse to answer tis point repeatedly.
Again u refuse to answer tis point. It shows u r not sincere in
discussion at all. U just want to win and u do nto want to see the
truth. Otherwise u will answer the question posed
If the question is never on the
definition of the word, why go through all the trouble in finding a
definition ?
Com'on la... U r the person who insist I do not know the
definition of the word, play tantrum and refuse to answer any of
the point and when I brought out the dictionary definition, u turn
around and blame on me claiming why do I go through all the trouble
to find the definition. I should ask u the question. Why go through
all the trouble in getting the definition when u have nothing to
talk about it ?
Are you being honest with
yourself, or are you trying to dodge the issue by cleverly
extracting single paragraphs that are unrelated to the core of the
arguments that you insist on having, and make your present comments
that make no sense to the main flow of the arguments across several
pages.
