Have you shown me to flip-flop, or
have my replies not merely follow your flip-flop meandering
ways of arguing your points ? There is no point in
this kiddy blame game, as each time when you slip up into a
flip, I will show you where you have flop.
Let the show begins then
Show ? Another deluded con
artiste imagining a grand standing performance as if anyone else is
interested in this debate.
Your first introduction of the word
"implosion" was on Pg 3 - 10 Jul 08 10.22AM, and it
is in your use of the word "implosion" as an inaccurate replacement
for my phrase "Karakatoa volcanic outburst". This caused the
current friction when you refused to allow me to link your "china's severe
corruption" to an implied China's collapse.
Actually I am amused at u, still looking at the word implosion
despite explanation on my side. Wat r your challenges against ? One
words differences, one number difference and tat is your most
serious allegation on me while I pointed out your dishonesty, your
refusal to answer any questions, your flip flopping of points as
well as fill to the brim with insults and name calling. If u insist
on being so unhappy tat I choose the word implosion to signal the
collpase under pressure of the society, then so be it lor
Have you been able to point
to any dishonesty on anyone's part - without pointing at your own ?
Or have you been avoiding the real issues by beating around the
bush ?
Are the words insults filled to
the brim, or simply the truth about the perverse style
that reflects your character that begin in the nick that you
have chosen - "stupid-is-smart" ?
Having suggested China's severe corruption,
you did not give any conclusion as to what will happen from the
severe corruption - as you prefer to elaborate the many
unethical, unreliable practises when dealing amongst
themselves or with others.
U r arguing out of point. I state tat "singapore is more
political stable than china because chian have corruption". Tis
statement is similar to tis "A is lighter than B because B is
fatter". Now the irony is tat, why does B being fatter means I have
to extrapolate the end state of B ? R u forcing me to state tat B
must have diabetes in future, B cannot do exercise B will collapse
because of its weight which is totally out of point. The fact is A
is lighter than B being B is fatter. Tat is it. Wat happened to B
in the end has nothing to do with A
Is my argument out of point
? Or are you attempting to avoid the real issue by obfuscating
the issue in your typical disingenuous
way ?
You did suggest that my
character "A" is lighter and with the organs starving of nutrients
and whose "outburst" will result in your preferred "implosion"
- that will result in your preferred "collapse" from
sheer weakness. Having been so quick and able to
diagnose the final end to Character "A" - why will you
hesistate to conclude that Charater
"B" severe overweight will surely lead to diabetes
with kidney failure and early death as the final end ?
Do I have to force you to state,
or should it not be a logical comparison of both Characters "A"
being starved and light weight that you insist will "implode"- but
will not come to any conclusion with Character "B" ?
Are you not flip-flopping your way
out of your own hole that you have been digging yourself into
?
If you believe that squeezing will
result in an implosion, have you seen what happens when you
squeeze a tube of tooth paste - does it result in an "implosion"
?
I think u r again trying to lie on wat I am claiming. I said tat
society implode like a how a submarine can implode if the outside
pressure is more than it can handle. It is failure under high
pressure, which is wat u r describing for the society example. Did
I mention toothpaste or squeezing out toothpaste ? Implosion is a
more violent reaction to high pressure, much like explosion which
collpase out while implosion is collpase in
I read the rest of your passage, it just dwells on these 2
points. The use of the word "implosion" and forcing me to make a
conclusion which is irrelevant to my discussion. Is the the only
thing u can say about the argument on china etc ? Now let me show
my displeasure at your debating in tis topic
1. The stand which I had stated is always the same, summarised in
the reply on 15 Jul 1028 am
I said tat political stability is a plus point and tat is why
singapore still attracts investors. I say tis political stability
is better than china and other countries in the
region.
But I did not say singapore got more investment than china.
There r many other factors china have which singapore do
not, such as a large market and low cost etc. But singapore still
manage its own niche area and still attract investors because they
r better in political stability.
Have
I lied in any way about your claims ? You seem to be fixated with
making me into a liar through your creative delusionary
interpretations to my replies.
Now
are you not dishonestly mixing two different points into one,
simply to create confusion to allow yourself to be
extricated from a hole you have dug yourself into
?
The first point was
concerning Singapore's "Karakatoa explosion" with your very
conclusive definition to the word "implosion", which
was followed by your coyness in giving a
similarly conclusive or possible outcome for China's severe
corruption.
The second was about your CEO
decision to invest in Singapore, or Zimbabwe or the
Congo.
Why are you now lumping this two
points into one issue ?
Have u ever shown tat I flip flop fromt he original stand I made ?
No. U r just playing with words all the while
Shall we start with the above
flip-flop mix up ?
The other flip-flops have been
outlined in my reply on Pg 5, 15 Jul 08 8.06PM - in which I
had gone through 10 exchanges that we had on one topic alone,
followed by a Summary indicating the way you flip flop with each
reply made.
2. I had posed a question repeatedly which is left unanswered.
According to u, singapore still attract a lot of investors. Since
cost is a big issue now, why does singapore still succeed in
attracting investors ? However u repeatedly ignore tis question
which shows your sincerity in discussing
You must surely take the cake for
your superb skills in attributing issues to me.
Was it mine statement that
Singapore attract alot of investors, or was it your own delusion
that Singapore's Political Stability has resulted in the attraction
of many investments from your C.E.O.'s decisions ? Or did you
make a mistake in reading parts of some sentence to suit your
conclusion to have me take your credit ?
3. U start to claim tat singapore is not political stable because
it can lead to a "krakatoa volcanic
eruption". It is basically a hypothesis which u can never
prove since it is looking into the future which u clearly cannot
and society now is not showing such signs. Tis is wild guesses
which I point it out and u seemed to be unhappy about it. U claimed
I made wild guesses on china corruption which i can prove using the
words from Hu jintao. Tis shows your accusation as
wrong.
Now you are changing the
significance of my statement made, by changing the text to suit
your own preferred conclusion.
Was it "Karakatoa volcanic
outburst" or was it an "eruption" ?
Did I make the statement -
tat singapore is not political
stable because it can lead
to a "krakatoa volcanic eruption" ?
Or was my
statement made with more caution on Pg 2 10 Jul 08 1.23AM -
"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" ?
With the words underlined, and ending
the statement - with word "unpredictable" - how did you so cleverly
read it as "wild guess" ?
Are you not being wild in your guessing of my
statement which had been cautious in its manner of statement made
?
4. Then u lie and claimed I conclude china is gonna collapse. There
is nothing I had said tat suggests tat and u give up trying to
prove it
Did I "conclude China is gonna
collapse" or was I doing you a favor when you refuse to make
any conclusion with your statement that China
have "a high level of
corruption", and digress
to "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." ?
What could be the reason for you
to avoid saying the final outcome of China's high level of
corruption that continue without any efforts to stop it -
when you have been so outspoken to offer Singapore Karakatoa
volcanic outburst to indicate that Singapore will implode
?
5. When it is clear u failed to read properly, u accused me of
writing badly. Tis again has never been substantiated except for
the single word "implosion". Let me question u staight. Does tis
single word totally deviate the whole meaning in the sentence ? All
these r metophors, and implosion or explosion r violent processes.
Just because we view the collapsing differently according to your
example, u cannot comprehend the whole sentence ?
Was my reading erroneous, or were
you being indecisive in your conclusion of two different statements
?
Are you not writing badly in this
statement alone ? :- Does tis single word totally deviate the
whole meaning in the sentence ?
Which sentence are you making
reference to ?
When you construct sentences so
vaguely, it will simply allow one to interprete in several
different ways, unless you are able to lock it in some disingenous
way to arrive at your preferred conclusion.
How were you are able to draw
a violent destructive conclusion from an "implosive" word in my
sentence, and continue to make your own statement about some wild
guesses about some volatile situation in China, but will
not make any conclusion ?
Extracted from your reply 10 Jul
08 10.22AM Pg 3. .
[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]
6. Then on the reply u stated on 10 Jul 1243 u claimed china is not
gonna collapse
Fortunately, present measure have
been taken to stop the spread of corruption, clear and
systematic laws have been passed to deal with this problem,
and the machinery to investigate, prosecute and sentence the
corrupt have been put in place.
then on the reply earlier at 18 jul 144 am
If you believe that China's
serious corruption will not result in a collapse of the system,
your should try digesting the following extract from Pg 5 of 25 of
a report -
U had flip flopped on your stand on chinam corruption and whether
will it collapse
7. Then now u r forcing me to make a conclusion on the effect on
corruption on china eventually. Tat is totally out of point to the
fact i wanna bring it out.
Lets see how u answer to these charges on tis discussion
Now lets see your argument on "right minded"
Now you have revealed your
"comprehensive skills" in reading simple English, but based on your
unique values - that being "stupid-is-smart" - you can
only think in your perverse ways with your "comprehensieve
skills".
Did you not read in my post
dated 10 Jul 08 12.43 PM Pg 3 - the
following: " If China's leadership have not and did
not respond to the situation of corruption, it will surely
lead China to destruction " ?
This paragraph had preceded the
one that you have extracted and quoted out-of-context.
Was the complete message made
in the two paragraphs - when read together - inconsistent with
my reply on Pg 7 - 18 Jul 08 1.44AM - which you extracted one
part without the remaining part being included ? The full paragraph
being:- "If you believe that
China's serious corruption will not result in a collapse of the
system, your should try digesting the following extract from Pg 5
of 25 of a report - "Anticorruption and Building a
Harmonious Society" "
Are you proving yourself to
be truly stupid or being smart by "doctoring" the paragraphs
to suit your perverse logic ?
Surely you must have
thought that you have proven yourself to be truly
"stupid-is-smart" ?
1. The argument on right minded started when u state
Would any right minded persons
make false claims ?
Tis is in response to the sentence which I said tat
Depends on whether u encourage people to make false claims or
not
2. Then I said, in the world now almost everybody make flase claims
in politics. I show the example of rumors on obama, south korea's
beef issue, president of USA and Taiwan. If all these abundance of
example of people who make false claims r not right minded, how can
u trust singaporean to be right minded ?
3. U response
Are these instances - that
you have given - the works of "right minded persons"
?
Tis shows your sincerity again by not answering whether do
u believe all singaporean can be right minded.
4. I state tat presidents r already not considered right minded
according to u, then the men on the street will be worse. It is
impossible for everyone in society to be right minded
5. Again u refuse to answer whether do u think singapore
population can all be right minded and u just repeat the point on
geroge bush being not "right minded"
Tis type of exchanges repeated. My point is "can u believe all
singaporean to be right minded" and your answer is always "George
bush etc r all not right minded". U r simply repeating an old point
which doesn't answer the underlying question tat I asked. Wat is
tis ? Dishonesty and again a lack of courage to answer the
questions posed
6. Then u issue a challenge for me
What examples have you given
to prove - tat despite being in
a modern economy, being in a democratic nation and being educated
doesn't make u "right minded" ?
Since u wanted examples of people being in a modern economy,
democratic nation, educated and not right minded, I give u a ton of
examples (which u accused of not right minded before) such as
george bush, chen shui bian, dick cheney etc. Can u tell me which
area these examples r not relevant to the ones u seek ? They all r
in modern economy, they all r in a democratic nation and they all r
educated. Accoridng to u, they all r not right minded. Wat is wrong
with these examples ?
You seem to be coy about
giving your understanding of the word "right minded" and "right
minded persons".
Can you even hope to discuss this
matter further when you do not even understand the phrase
?
7. And then now wat ? U just hurl a mountain of verbal abuses out.
U twist words, hurl insults and give no points except to use it to
dismiss other people point. Tat shows u r uncivilised by using
verbal abuses to other people points.
I am surprised that despite the
mountain of verbal abuses, you have been able to surmount the
abuses and still will desire to come back for more.
You must be proving
to yourself that being "stupid-is-truly-smart" ?
It is normal I will attempt to
give my best to those who attempt to challenges common
sense with perverse logic.
Is it not obvious that the
"right-minded" ones will know how not to be manipulated
?
Is it the right thing to do to
be "standing up against the many fuel subsidies removal
from democratic countries" ?
Do you think there are no one
opposing the 50,000 ?
Is not obvious that the "right
minded" people knows what is right in not confronting the volatile
50,000 ?
In reality, u have not shown any right minded people doing
anything. U have not shown tat all or most singaporean r right
minded, given your stringent requirement tat even presidents
failed. U have not show tat tis right minded people can stand up
against the people who r not "right minded" as u claimed in
This require “right
minded”. persons to stand-up
and resist those who are wilfully wrong, perverse, misguided, - and
those determined to control by deceit, avarice,
double-dealings. ?
U stated tat right minded people do not dare stand up against
the 50,000 'wrong minded' individsuals, then your above point tat
they will stand up and resist them is hogwash.
Tis is the same as above. Since not everyone is right minded,
there will be a lot of false claims, people get emotional due to
the false claims and it is not good.
I did not suggest right
minded people to be more susceptible to communism. I suggest tat if
everybody in the society is "right minded", which is impossible,
then they can go for communism."
Here I stated tat since it is impossible men to be perfect or
right minded. If everyone is perfect and right minded, then they r
better off to be living as a communist since it ensures equal
wealth for everyone. Again, men r not perfect and they r flawed and
tat is why they r not right minded. It is consistent .
Where is the flip flop here ? Again a poor comprehension skill of
yours ?
You
seem to be coy about giving your understanding of the word "right
minded" and "right minded persons".
Did you not reject this piece
claiming that you did not refer to Thailand and Malaysia,
and insist that the other alternative for your investors will be
Zimbabwe and Congo ?
The reason why zimbabwe is mentioned is becasue it is an example
of a country tat has a poor political stability and tat is why a
CEO, for example of a printing company, shouldn't build their
factory there now. However it seems to be very difficult of u to
understand tis simple statement and bring in Malaysia or thailand
(who r not tat dangerous) into the picture.
Again u refuse to answer the question why does singapore still
attract investors over
This is where Singapore
Tyrannosaur will be proven correct for his piece posted on Pg 1 -
09 Jul 08 5.20PM concerning your mental handicap in
being able to handle only"black and white" choices.
Have I not proven to you that a
country with poor political stability have not deterred China from
investing in Zimbabwe ?
As I have said before - you
may not make the grade as a CEO - for lacking in
entrepreneurialship, and being risk averse. How can
anyone teach you to know that in place as desparate as
Zimbabwe, if you are able to strike a perfect balance with a
criminal like Robert Mugabe, you maybe well make
your zillions in Zimbabwe ?
You seem to expect everyone to fit
your narrow tunnel vision about the political stability that
Singapore offers, and blind to the other conditions that are more
rewarding then Singapore ?
Can your limited choice of factors
be sufficiently comprehensive to make any reasonable decision
whether it is more attractive to invest in Singapore, or
less attractive to invest in Zimbabwe ?
Are you being honest or plain
stupid to ignore the various responses given on this subject alone
that stretch across 7 pages ?
If you have no answer to give -
whether honest or deceitful ones - you could have done yourself a
favor by deleting as what you have been doing ?
Wat r the previous statement u said ?
Did I lose focus, or
have you simply no reply to the statements made that had
proven the ridiculous thinking ability of one with a perverse
value ?
Is this not a sheer sign of
your own desparation to wriggle out of the hole that you persist in
digging in your usual "stupid-is-smart" ways ?
Nothing. It just tell me your impression of me and inside there
is no statement worthy to rebuke. The statement can be pasted in
any of the paragraph I have written so far and all it did is give
the people a wrong impression. Why don't u be specific and mention
wat is the thing u felt wrong instead of giving vague replies tat
can be posted anywhere no matter who u r debating
with
Exactly, why should there be any
value in the statement to be made about one who will insist that
being "Stupid-is-smart" ?
With your selective approach
in leaving out whole portions of my replies for your
response, are you being devious in making my piece too
incoherent for you tor make any sensible reply - except to ask
"Wat r the previous statement u
said ? "
Were you not allowed to "reach
this conclusion" when it has been your choice to have done so
at any time ?
Was it a big lie, or were you
simply too forgetful or too deceitful to "reach
the obvious conclusion" for China to collapse - as
explained in the preceding paragraph above ?
I can come to tis conclusion if u just simply answer the
question I had posed. But u don't dare to. I do not need to come to
a conclusion simply by saying china is corrupted.
Why do you indulge in this
juvenile blame game ?
Why will you not be truly smart
and admit that you simply cannot accept the replies given, as
it simply do not fit the mould that you want my replies to be,
so as to make it convenient for you to justify a hopeless
position ?
Have I failed to answer any of
your questions ? Or was the answer given simply inconvenient for
your own scheme ?
Perhaps, if you only try to be a
little less stupid and be a little smarter - instead
of thinking "stupid-is-smart" - you may understand the answers
yourself - after all you have been able to believe that Singapore's
stability can attract all investors.
Trying to avoid your beaten points and resort to verbal abuse
again... Let me pose it again for u
Then wat is the conclusion ? A democratic
politics system does not give a "democratic" economy. An
un-democratic politic system can provide a "democratic economy".
And "democratic economy" is the more important characteristic to
get rich. Then wat is the use of democracy in politics ? U seemed
to have failed to answer tis question.
Another kiddie riddle to confuse
the issues - similar to your Character A being starved, and
Character B being over-weight ?
If you believe that the world is
only in black-and-white, stratified and compartmentalised - with no
possibility of mixing, you can always come out with your most
convenient and arbitrary replies.
Why do you test your own patience
- in insisting your you can be smart by being
stupid ?
Only you will delude yourself with
a fantasy of being able to debunk anyone's position, counting
across the 7 pages, I see your style as conveniently skipping out
paragraphs from my replies, which allow you to reply on issues
taken out of context and giving yourself an easier task to tackle.
Surely you can beat any points when taken out of context - we will
cheer your superiority in idiotlogy.
If u
think u have answered, I challenge u to prove it. Which reply u
have given explicitly answer tis question ? Otherwise u r just a
lier which I had proved repeatedly
Is there anything that needs to be
proven, when the evidence exist in the Real World ?
Why will you want to re-invent the
wheel - by beginning from an untenable premise that being
"Stupid-is-smart" ?
Surely you should know that
using 'google' to get any successful results will
depend on the key word or words to get the right information
?
U r getting out of point here again. Earlier u claim tat there
is a term called "democratic economy" and u define it as
Democracy in economics is to
allow the citizens to exercise their rights to achieve
their economic goals with as little governmental interference
as possible - that limit the business or
entrepreneurial potentials; while the government's
responsibility is to provide all the assistance
possiible
Which basically means no intervention by the gov when starting
business. Then u paste the below text with a report behind
For
governance is really a notion to convey what government is for and
how it is best carried out. In other words, it implies a close
association between the political domain and, first, the economic
domain for which it is meant to deliver the 'what', and, secondly,
the social domain via which it is meant to achieve the
'how'.
Let me see... is there anything here tat talk about non gov
intervention ? No. Did the report define the term "democratic
economy" ? Nope. I have searched all the word democratic and
economy and they never use tis term at all. The above further
confirms my theory tat u r just giving out a new term and confusing
everybody.
According to researches, employees are very
sensitive not only to what orders are given, but also to how they
are given. Management theories embody four main leadership
management styles. Those are autocratic, democratic, laissez-faire
and exceptional management
styles.
Lets look at tis one. We r talking about "democratic economy",
but u give out democratic leadership. Democratic leader make sense
since decision is taken by voting of the people. But democratic
leader is NOT equal to democratic economy. U r trying to confuse
people here.
Hereby I can conclude, there is no such thing as "democratic
economy", it is a term u imagined out, then twist to watever u want
and it just confuse everybody. It shows again u r a lier
I am amaze that you manage earlier
with your comprehensive comprehesion on the basic skeleton of the
concept of a "Democratic Economy" in you previous reply
:
"A democratic politics system does not give a "democratic"
economy. An un-democratic politic system can provide a "democratic
economy". And "democratic economy" is the more important
characteristic to get rich. Then wat is the use of democracy in
politics ?"
If you deny that there is no such
thing as a "democratic economy" - why did you give such a
perfect understanding in your riddle given, and yet will ask a
superlative question to end the riddle in asing:"Then wat is the use of democracy in politics
?"
Sometimes it is easier to
entertain the fool while helping in his education.
Do you understand what is
"democracy" and its inter-relationship with "democratic
practices" - compared to the term "autocracy" and "autocratic
practices" - with the word "practices" covering a broad front
?
It would have served you well if
you had extracted my whole response in full - on Pg 7 18 Jul 08
1.44AM, instead of taking pot shots at selected
paragraph mischeviously taken out of context to suit your
own desparate agenda of debunking my position...
Did you really manage to
appreciate that the report had listed China as separate entity -
from Hong Kong ?
How can you appreciate the
intention of leaving China out from the beginning when the number
of millionaires from India and Hong Kong were sufficient to prove
that democracies can produce more millionaires then
Singapore ?
Lets not lose focus on the discussion of the above up till
now.
1. U leave out the name of china from the list of
millionaires in the region
Yes, and it was intended, and for
the reason already stated.
2. When I ask u why do u leave it out, u started to accuse
me saying tat hong kong is china and tat I did not understand the
situation. U say tat u mention hong kong is equal to mention
china
Were you wrongly accused ?
Were the words so simply put in the manner that you have
stated ? Am I so careless to mention - "hong kong is equal to
mention china" ?
You are truly deluded.
Your reply on Pg 4 11Jul'08
11.13AM had quoted my piece followed by your reply:
[Quote]
After reading this article,
you will note that India - the leading democracy in Asia - has
seen a surge of about 25,000 persons gaining millionaire
status in the US$ denominated qualification.
Hong Kong saw an
addition of more then 9,000 persons to boost its millionaires
to a new high of 95,000 - followed by South Korea Indonesia
and Singapore - all three countries preceding Singapore being more
democratic compared to Singapore.
Maybe u will like to see it in tis way... all
their population r much higher than singapore. Why don't u look
with respect to the population of the country ?
Singapore has 66660 millionaires from http://www.tg-supply.com/article/view.html?id=15899 hong
kong has 7 million people. Singapore % is 1.48 while hong kong is
1.36. And singapore is not democractic
Also u r purposefully removing china from the number of new
millionaires tat the region see in tis year. Why remove their name
? because they r not democractic ?
[UnQuote}
My reply on Pg 4 followed on Pg 4
12Jul'08 6.04AM -
[Quote]
If you believe that India with
a larger population has the larger opportunity to produce a higher
head-count of millionaires - how do you explain that prior to PM Manmohan
Singh plugging India into the Global Economy, there were no
such numbers of millionaires for India to boast about
?
Was it not due to the
liberalising of India's economy from the grip of the renown
autocratic bureaucracy of India that resulted in India
becoming an economic threat to the Tiger economies of South-east
Asia ?
Are you not being petty about
China being left out ?
Is Hong Kong not part of
China ?
Would you believe that China
was intentionally left out as bait for an expected outburst from
you ?
Do you seriously
believe that one can be so blind not to appreciate that the
same liberalising of China's economy had dismantled the central
planning economy, that allowed China's economy to take-off and
allow her citizens to exercise personal freedom of choice and
decision making ?
Only one who will believe that
"stupid-is-smart" will believe in the dubious source of
the given link about Singapore millionaires outnumbering Hong
Kong's.
Do you know who is the writer
named as Muntazir
Zaidi whose name appeared as the author of your
reference piece ?
How extensive has his
research been conducted to arrive at his disputable conclusion
?
How many of the 66,660
millionaires are home-grown Singaporean, and not some migrant
refugee millionaire escaping from corruption charges in their
countries of origin, and finding the autocratically ruled
environment sufficiently convenient for their own safety
?
[UnQuote]
3. When i point out tat your report had listed china differently
from hong kong, u accuse me of not knowing hong kong is
part of china and even quote out sentences trying to sound as
though I write hong kong is not part of china. Tis turn out to
be either a lie of yours or your weak comprehension skill
You seem to be frustrated
with your continuous inability to prove yourself
that I am a liar, and it shows even in your statement to think on
my behalf.
Am I to be blamed for your
inability to accept Hong Kong alone being compared with
Singapore, when you insist that its numbers are to be
seen as part of the bigger China - when even researchers will
normally treat both separately for specific reasons.
Are you not behaving like a kiddie
deprived of winning a game based on your own interpretation of the
rules for the game to be played ?
4. Then suddenly flip flop and say tat u purposely leave out
china because it is not democratic, which it turns out tat I am
right about u purposely leaving out china and reporting half
truth
If you need to, you can surely
satisfy your desparate hunger for a pinch of deluded victory
if you have been so feverishly looking for one across 7 pages of
this thread.
Should I oblige you with one
?
From my earlier reply given above
dated 11Jul'08 11.13AM - when India and Hong Kong were the only two
states being compared to Singapore, could China been a suitable
state for comparison - as the critieria was both are "leading
democracies" ?
It was intentionally left out, as
I have stated. Was there any need to lie to begin with ?
Are you not being childishly
foolish - in the same manner as being frivolously stupid to
advertise boldly that being "Stupid-is-Smart"
?.
Wat is your comment on tis ? It is clear as day u have flop flop
in your stand and then u should be brave enough to acknowledge it.
Otherwise u have to explain explicitly why u made such a
contradictory remarks.
I still wanna ask u tis question
I have found another flip flop in your reply
In your desparation to score
points over my replies, you can always delude yourself to see as
many flip-flop as possible, as some of the replies given to you is
to follow your flip-flop positions that you have taken.
You have at least progressed to
read the report that was made as a reference, but did you left out
the part that was quoted for you to click on - as shown below
?
According to a February 2007 Report – at the
close of 2006, there were 1,910 applications received, with
reported personal assets amounting to an average of $3.24 million
per applicant.
So it was shown in the Report that
Hong Kong - like Singapore - was trying hard to attract
talents.
However, was it
inconvenient for your scheme of things to note that Hong
Kong was only 1,910 applicants received with
personal assets averaging $3.24 million each
?
So u agree tat u have read improperly into my previous replies
and now u r trying to come out with something new ? Fine.
Have I agreed on anything with my
reply ?
Did I print anything in the blank
space between each lines with words as expressed ?
Surely, you cannot be so desparate
to this end ?
Was there any flip-flop, when it
was you who insisted that Singapore had 66,660 home grown
Singaporean millionaires - and will not accept that many of these
66.660 are NOT home-grown Singaporeans - which
led you to dispute that the larger number of
Hong Kong millionaires are similarly attracted from
overseas ?
Your stupedous ability to lose
focus have been consistently pointed out, but you refuse to take
heed, and will blindly pursue to be provacative with
silly arguments that simply reflect more and more of
your "Stupid-is-Smart" principles..
So wat is singapore number ? Since u claim tat singapore has
more immigrant who r millionaire, then u have to show tis figure.
Otherwise your report is inconclusive.
Do you think that the PM's
office will authorise the Ministry of
Finance or the Department of Statistics to give out
the numbers ?
Accepting that Civil Servants
are Singaporeans, are they fair representative of
Singaporeans ?
Can
the over-paid Civil Servants complaints reflect the
problems of the Middle Income, or that of the Lower Income,
and the destitutes in Singapore ?
Are
you serious that Civil Servants are allowed to vote when
the majority of them are recruited by the Election Officer to
man the Polling Stations, and assist in the counting of ballot
papers ?
Again u cleverly ignore the earlier points I made.
In your reply, u have carefully ignored my part on
"complaints made by singaporean". Now r the
complainants civil servants or taking gov salary ?
Nope. U purposefully ignore tis portion and yet
can go around scolding people about flip flopping. U have
nothing to say about your flip flopping actions in the earlier
points ?
I explicitly mention the complaints made by normal singapore
citizen r followed and these r "normal singaporean" U just skip
past it. Do i have to repeatedly point u to the right direction
?
And tis reminds me... wat is your explanation for your earlier
flip flopping of the points ? Speechless about it ?
Have I carefully ignored your
parts expressed were you indulging in deceit
to insist that the Government listening to Civil
Servants "complaints" is equivalent to listening to the complaints of
Singaporeans ?
Surely it does not take too much
intelligence to see through your desparation to score some points
on every single issue by bringing up ridiculous points of arguments
that have no comparison or relevance.
Speechless ? Yes, as the
stupendous pride that you take in being
"Stupid-is-Smart"
Are you serious that Civil Servants
are allowed to vote when the majority of them
are recruited by the Election Officer to man the Polling
Stations, and assist in the counting of ballot
papers ?
Tat is ridiculous. So u r suggesting civil servants should lose
their rights to vote ? Is tat your idea of democracy ?
Check with the Election
Office.
Have you lost your navigation in
reading my reply - extracting the opening paragraph of my reply on
Pg 5 15 Jul 08 8.05PM - and left out the parts showing your
'flip-flop' expertise, and now ask for evidence ?
Where is the flip flop ? Explicitly write it out for all to
see
As was stated - it was printed on
Pg 5 - 15Jul'08 8.05PM, and the entire analysis of your response
was given by yours truly - which you have avoided as seen in your
reply below.
Refer to my post on Page
5 which you have conveniently left out extracting
the juciest parts ? Was it too much for you to swallow,
that you will prefer to hide the matter by avoiding the matter, and
save some face by asking for the facts to be
repeated ?
There is a big chunk of words there and try as I might, every
part looks dry. Since there is such an interesting juicy part, then
point it out
Is there a nreed to print out
again the chunk of words that you are too embarassed to quote or
even address the issues raised in my analysis ?
Or have you grown tired trying to
whip your donkey that is already dead under the weight of your
stupidity ?
Are you in doubt of your own
conclusion ? Have you lost track of your own argument and is
now looking for my point to argue over ?
Are you suggesting that the
US Democratic system should prevent George + Dick from
getting into Office ?
Is it not a fact that in a
Democratic system such as that in the USA, the system will
allow a level playing field for all the contestants ?
I did not doubt my own conclusion and I pointed to u the bare
facts of democracy. It makes mistakes. I am saying despite your
high regards on democracy, they make mistakes. Tat is it. U seemed
to be talking about something completely off tangent here again
Did anyone write that Democracy is
perfect in all aspects ?
Democracy may allow mistakes to
occur, and it also allow the opportunity for corrections to be
made. Can the same be made for any corrections to be made in a
political system such as that which exist in Singapore
?
Did you manage to appreciate the
issues behind the protests ? Are your thoughts more capable then
the South Korean President-Elect's decision to fire his
ministers for the wrong advise in signing the Free Trade Agreement
with the controversial US Beef issue included as a package
?
U r flip flopping again. Earlier u felt tat the 50,000 people
who protest r not "right minded" and then now u support the people
to protest ? So u r also not right minded ?
Before you go into a grand
standing diatribe of your stupendous knowledge, you have yet to
tell your supreme knowledge of what "right minded" is - according
to your understanding ?
Is there any use to have any
discussion with you when you are running on a different track
?
Only you will allow yourself to be
as fickle as the Father and Son, and perhaps hope to be the donkey
?
Did you read my reply before
posting your response ?
I read it and tis response is good for u. Did u read on my point
of wat is the difference between listening and deciding ?
Did you make any point concerning
the difference between "listening" and "deciding" -
when you have yet to understand that
listening to Singaporeans is not the same as listening to Civil
Servants - which is an Occupational Class of Singaporeans not
representative of all Singaporeans ?
With your unique display of the
"stupid-is-smart" wisdom in looking at the World with your eyes,
should we dispute with your immense wisdom that with the Civil
Servants being Singapore Citizens, with the Government listening to
the Civil Servants is sufficient and acceptable to listening to the
other citizens.
I mentioned normal citizens many times but u ignore it. Then u
blame me for not mentioning the ordinary citizen ? Wow man your
skill had improved
Is there a class of "normal
citizens" from "abnormal citizens" ?
Are the Civil Servants "normal
citizens" and the non-Civil Servants to be treated as "abnormal
citizens" ?
Who should be the "ordinary
citizens" - the "normal" or "abnormal" ones ?
Are you changing your position
democracy, and its results ?
No. I am stating the obvious.
The only issue that is obvious is
your impossible achievement to prove that being
"stupid-is-smart".
For one who think in terms of
black-and-white can you appreciate that there are alternative
ways of viewing the issue ?
So wat is your view ?
Surely one that is more colorful
then your bland "black-and-white" view.
Undefined question ?
Why do u not dare to answer your own question ? Have u lived in
a democracy ?
If you have lived in a democracy -
even for as short a period as 6 months - it surely showed that you
have barely scratched the surface.
If you had lived longer in a
democracy then the six months that you claim for yourself, you will
have found that to be modest and discreet is a virtue when living
with others.
From your displayed enthusiasm in
supporting the methods of an autocracy, it is obvious that
you have not appreciated the democratic life; or that the six
months stay was nothing but a sham, or perhaps a hollow publicity
stunt.
