IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by stupidissmart @ Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:03:02 +0800

stupidissmart — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:03:02 +0800

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.

Yayaya... u see, u prefer not to be courteous and prefer other not to be courteous to u, and your reason is simply because u felt I am "illogical" and hurl verbal abuses over me and my log in name again. It also prove tat u just skip the main point of the previous reply and just nit pick on stupid details which u always do.

Fine. U wanna be rude, I can play your barbarian game as well. Let it be noted here tat I had already attempted to make the debate more "gentleman" but u prefer your old scoundrel way. Tat is probably the way opposition fight. Low down and ugly. U suddenly make me realise why the gov do not wanna have a live television debate with u guys.

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 ?

Let see your whole chunk of rubbish on the word "theory". U see, u agree with me on two things

1) U cannot see the future

2) U can only "estimate" wat u think the future is like

Now u complain tat I use the word "theory" on your "future prediction". Wat is the actual differences between "theory" and "estimate" ? Both r subjective, both r not the truth, both r just wat u think, u cannot prove out both and therefore there is no wrong in using the word "theory" on your hypothesis. Don't u feel u r silly ? U r already bankrupt on your attack against me isn't it ? Commenting so much word on just the word "theory" when there is really nothing wrong with using it. U r really bankrupt on your points

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"

Now on the word of "implosion". I already clearly stated in the previous reply

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 ?

However u again r as stupid as before and ignore the main point of the passage. U claimed many things in the same reply, literally claimed singapore is gonna suffer a setback in future so great tat it is like a volcanic eruption AND poses a big major risk to all investors AND politically less stable than china. Why can't I condense the 3 effects to form a word "implode" as a prefered metaphor ? Who r u to dictate wat matephor I should used ?

"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 ?

U mean claiming singapore is gonna suffer a setback in future so great tat it is like a volcanic eruption AND poses a big major risk to all investors AND politically less stable than china. If u ask me, the events u claimed is not certain and is very different from the present situation. If u cannot provide evidence, it is nothing but a theory.

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" ?

See wat I mean ? There is nothing left for u to talk about and tat is why u r so lame tat u r resorting to bringing out one word by one word to talk about. SO u put the word "unpredictable". Then ? I told u the word "unpredictable" is the opposite of "stability" as in the topic "political stability". Tat is why it do means a deviation from "stability". Then u blame me for bringing out the word "stability". U r the one tat play such a game first, then blame on others. Lame

This differs from your remarkable conclusion "tat singapore will implode" - when my paragraph had not suggested any predictable outcome.

U have listed out predictable outcome in your passage and I have REPEATEDLY shown. U just again refuse to comment and skip past tis MAIN POINT. I post it here again

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.

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.

COme on face it la. ST claims it is less of a pull factor, BUT NEVERTHELESS A FACTOR. U claim it is NOT A PULL FACTOR AT ALL. The meaning is not close and different conclusions r drawn out. In fact it is so great tat is has been the thing we r discussing for 9 pages.

Later u claim u r extending to become your own conclusion. However, U LIE and u explicitly PUT WORDS INTO ST's MOUTH because u say ST CLAIM tat stability is no longer a pull factor.

JBJ you favorite opposition ?

Tis is again another lame point u wanna pull out. I have already clearly stated before tat I may not like democracy but it doesn't mean I hate all the opposition parties member. R u gonna tell me u hate all the PAP members and all the "old guards" and "founding fathers" of singapore ?

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 ?

First, u did not prove me of any wrongdoing by using the word "implode". Second, I did not mention china is gonna collapse and there is no reason why U can force me to make such a stand. I just stated china have corruption. Tat does not imply it will collapse. And I use the itch analogy to explain why a country can have problems but is not gonna collapse. However u just misleading dishonestly try to force me to make a stand which I did not and refuse to make. Does saying "china got corruption" or "US got subprime crisis" or "Japan have to change its leader soon" or "Korea has a beef protestors issue" or "Bhutan found a dead horse" means I HAVE TO CONCLUDE ALL THESE COUNTRIES R GONNA COLLAPSE ? Can't I just mention the problem of a country ?

Does talking about a problem in a country = i must conclude country must collapse ?

U r just ridiculous and trying to be despicable with no other points to talk about.

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.

Again u r putting words into my mouth again. I claim singapore has better political stability than china. I NEVER CLAIM CHINA IS WORSE THAN SINGAPORE IN ATTRACTING INVESTORS. Tis is wat u repeatedly do. Putting words into other people's mouth and then arguing over it. I have said the below paragraph repeatedly

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.

I have explained my stand repeatedly which u refuse to comment or prove out tat I had ever claimed political stability is the MOST important factor or I claimed singapore is more attractive to investor than china.

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.

U r really the one tat dodge all the questions, points put forward by people and just go about repeating in circles over points tat had been said time and time again. Can u prove I ever say tat political stability is the MOST important factor ? If not, then haven't u show yourself to make another ST type mistake by putting your own words into other people mouth

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 ?

There r some problems with sgforums and the reply u set is not the reply it gives out

The para is below

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.

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.

And I have shown these companies r having problems now due to the EU sanction. The problems of investing in political instable country is even more obvious now.

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 ?

Lost ? U just refuse to comment on the main point which I am bringing out.

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.

Other than talking rubbish and insults in the reply, do u have anything to say about the analogy now and at peace with the metaphor I had given now ?

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.

U r repeating a point which I had also repeatedly rebuked. Your conclusion obviously is wrong. I have stated political stability is important, but it is not the most important factor. U have never shown any examples of me stating it is the most important. The reason why u claim I said it is the most important simply because I repeat, when the reason why I repeat is simply because u repeatedly refuse to listen

Is saying the same thing many times = it is the most important ?

Is a geography teacher saying geography is important = she must means geography is the most important subject for mankind ?

Is a person saying eating vegetable is good for health repeatedly = she must eat nothing but vegetable for her whole life ?

I have stated the example of the geography teacher many times which u again refuse to comment or listen. Tis is again nothing but a black and white thinking of yours. Saying repeatedly doesn't mean it must be the primary factor. It just shows u repeatedly refuse to listen

Have you finally awaken from your stupor to recognise what has been said in the preceding pages in different forms ?

Tat is the first u mention tis. It is u who finally realise wat is the more important thing to talk about

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".

U r really just wasting my time. I have never claim china is gonna collapse or singapore is gonna collapse of political stability is the most important consideration. All tis is u trying to force me in concluding. Now the only thing u do is simply try to force your words on me then attack on these false conclusions which I never stated. Isn't tat despicable, dishonest and frankly, disgusting way of debating.

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 ?

U r the one making all the false claims here and proving tat will be a lot of false claim around any society. I have already stated tons of examples on fase claims circulating a lot of countries which again u refuse to see. In fact from all your replies, filled to the brim with verbal abuses, it clearly shows why politician have the right to sue on slander or libel. They do it to control such a despicable low class person from abusing the system and give insults for nothing. Isn't tat already evidences of my conclusion ?

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 ?

Wat is inside the reply u stated ? Nothing but verbal abuses and u expect me to paste it all out ? Com'on la. I can never achieved your ability in giving verbal abuses over nothing.

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 ?

Drained ? U mean giving abuses without elaboration is better ? I have already clearly stated the differences with the word "almost" which u clearly remove. Again it is another attempt by u in putting words into other people's mouth which u have shown to do it repeatedly. Wat does tis say about your character

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

Com'on la... I thought u support people to protest. Does protest necessary leads to violence ? Another black and white thinking of yours or u r beginning to think like PAP ? A group of people can choose to protest in seoul while the other "right minded" group can choose to protest in another city. Will tis 2 group meet ? Nope. Do they have to have an open confrontation ? Nope. Do they have to hurt each other ? Nope. Can they get their message across ? Yes. So how come nobody stand up against the beef protesters ? Isn't tat again show tat it is 50,000 to zero

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.

Again u have shown yourself to be incapable of looking at the main point brought but instead nitpicking on stupid details such as the one above. I have stated tis point repeatedly

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.

And wat is your answer to tis ? NOTHING ! U just keep talking about other issues, hurling insults and say nothing on the main point. And the whole idea is about president. Look at the line in bold. George bush and chen shui bian r just examples tat support my statement.

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.

U want to look at your previous reply ? Sure

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 ?

U see the above, u have only come out with 3 lines tat r relevant to the discussion namely the one in blue. The others r simply verbal abuses. Removing the quoted words, the only relevant words to the point is simply 47 words while the irrlevant insults is 194. And u expect me to quote out all your rubbish when it is just verbal abuses ? Isn't tis already clear evidences tat I shouldn't quote out your rubbish in full ?

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.

U can see again tat u refuse to answer the main point of the message but dwell on stating... rubbish... Wat have u reply here ? Verbal abuses again. I paste the main points over again

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 ?

ANd there is a lot of other topic which u have shown to be too embarrassed to talk about. On one hand u claim I do not quote out all your reply and on the other, u ignore points tat r too embarrassing for u. I paste them here again and await your reply to it

How many of these personalities have you counted in the global population of how many billion humans on this globe ?

Hmm.. so I give u tons of examples of people who make false claims and u just say tat they r not representative of the whole world population. Then wat about u ? Wat have u shown to prove tat most people r right minded ? Don't forget it is your initial claim on the topic of right minded people and doing nothing doesn't mean they r right minded. It is again many thousands compared with your zero example

Only by the displayed standards of pervers thinking that will lead only you to believe that "Right-Minded" people in a perfect society will accept communism.

Do you even know what is the Communism is all about based on Karl Marx political philosophy, or are you basing your understanding on what has been fed to you ?

Despite u saying so much things, u cannot dispute the fact tat if everybody is right minded in a society, communist is a good model to follow

Why did you selectively made extracts from the various paragraphs in the various replies that I have made, and quoting these in a dishonest and "out-of-context" form ?

This is not the first time, and you have not responded to my post but have instead digressed into old issues rehashed again to divert attention from your failed points.

IF u think I have stated out of context, then proved it. Otherwise based on your own thinking, u r considered as not right minded yourself. Wat have u got to say for tis. I am gonna stick back the reply again

Hurling more insults without elaboration or justification of your stand. I paste the above again

Have I supported the Korean "beef import" protestors in their position, or have I supported the South Korean democratic practices that allow a minority to be able to voice their protest ?

U claim u support democratic practises but in actual fact your reply is supporting their cause of protest.

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 ?

So u have flip flop in your stand and u r not right minded

This surely confirm again your desparation in shoring up your devastated positions that have been consistently shredded and left you hopeless floundering, and now grabbing on thin straws to stay afloat.

This point has been stated clearly in my most recent post that you have now given your reply - by simply rehashing your old position without even any effort to redefine or add new points.

Can you prove what was stated in my last reply on Pg 8 - which you are addressing now - to be erroneous in any way ?

I find u being more desperate in fact. U claimed I had repost my old points, when u simply refuse to answer the allegations. If u r graceful enough to accept your mistake or prodive a rational explanation, then I have to stop. But u just ignore the point, shoot out some verbal abuse and then claim a lot of things. Do u think your lousy attitude will make me not stick with the same point till u counter it ?

First, u did not put in china's name in the list with the most number of millionaire in the region. Sure, u can choose not to put china in the example. However u claim tat putting hong kong is equivalent to putting china's name in the infamous reply

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 ?

Now if u read the above statement, u can conclude it implies tat u did not put in china name in because hong kong is part of china. The important sentence is the one in bold. If u had meant otherwise, why do u put in tat sentence ? I have repeated ask u to elaborate another logical explanatino to the above statement which u refused repeatedly refused. Furthermore the third sentences is asking a question. It can be "Yes I intentionally left it out and it is used as a bait" and "No, I did not leave it out and it is there because hong kong is there"

Tis is another of your flip flopping example

Your inability to find "my report" to follow "my models on hw a 'democratic economy' works" - is due to your own inability to comprehend the reference pieces that were intended to educate you.

You had preferred to concentrate your understanding based on the introductory passage without attempting to read the entire reference piece that would have shown you how a "democratic economy" can exist, function and succeed - from the basic level of management-worker relationship, to one where the Government still have an active part without being overwhelming in autocratic controls - working with society and industry.

Again u r just talking nonsense here. I have quoted out important paragraphs, interprete and explain. U ? U claim there is something in there, refuse to quote out any paragraph and refuse to back the challenge of showing the relevant sections. Wat does tis show ? U just lie in your definition of "democratic economy". U want to say u r not a lier ? PROVE IT. SHOW ME THE RELEVANT PASSAGES IN YOUR OWN REPORT

If you are interested - the link without the fancy dressings is:-

http://sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1089

It is still a dead link

Wild guesses ? As in the manner that you made your "Theory tat singapore will implode" by reading my paragraph ?

Yawn... see, u just prove my point. U only harp on the word "implosion" and "stupidissmart". I have told u statistical evidence point to the fact tat singapore had more proportion of the people being millionaires. U provide no statistic information on singapore millionaires being home grown. Wat can u conclude ? Singapore had more proportion of the people being millionaires, and tat is it

I do not know why but halfway through it seems your reply had cut off again. Since u proposed I should "lead the charge", so I paste back all the replies which u failed to answer.

How would you know those car washers are "ordinary" migrants, and not merely work permit holders ?

Besides those "car washers" - are there any others that you see can possibly be settled migrants, and how many of those that you see form what percentage of migrants in the Department of Statistics ?

And how do u know these car washers can't be ordinary migrants ? I already told u before. I see them working in coffeeshops, driving buses, washing cars, taking public transport, in the IT line, study in university and generally working like normal people. If tis group of people r not your so called 50% of the migrants, then where do tis big group of people go to ? Adding 50 % of the population is a big amount. Out of 3 person u see, 1 is a migrant. And then u claim they r not ordinary people who r seen to work ordinary.

Should there be no relationship ?

Was it not highlighted in at least two of my earlier replies ?

U mean u claiming they r not here as ordinary citizen ? I don't see the hightlight.

If my statement in the preceding paragraph has no relations, how did you arrive at this conjecture ?

Are you capable of handling statistics ?

U claim singapore attract a lot of foreigners I also say hong kong also attract a lot of chinese into the territory. Chinese r not considered forreigner and it is not within your report scope

Are you having any difficulties in understanding what was stated as my reply, or did it not suit your own plot ?

It is just funny tat u refuse to answer even your own question. If it is a plot, u r the one devising it. U r the one tat ask tis question first

If it was so, why did you not initiated the charge ?

I already reply u previously, u did not reply. So obviously I can conclude u concede.

Only you will wish that these is no reply, when you had refused to read the reply that was already given, but insist on my reply to fit your own preferred plot.

Did I not mention that even as India was a political democracy, its economy was under the autocratic control of its bureaucracy ?

If it was not until PM Mamohan Singh's decision to liberalise India's economy from autocratic control that saw India blossomed and produced all the millionaires.

U r not answering to the point. Then isn't it obvious tat democracy in politics had nothing to do with "democracting" the economy ? U claimed tis indian PM liberalise india economy. But the fact is he done it too late. China who is not democratic yet had "democrat" their economy. Tat is why their economy is better and they r more influential. So wat is the point of democracy in politics when it is mutually independent to economy ? U refuse to answer the above point and talk about other stuffs. I put it in number form for u

4.3.1) India is democratic for many years. China is not democratic

4.3.2) U claim india economy is not "democratic" in the past and surprisingly claim china economy is for many years. Tat is your explanation why china's economy is better than india despite india being democratic

4.3.3) Then the question is, Wat is the point of democracy in politics, if it does not lead to it to be a "democratic" economic ? Why people choose democracy is simply because they should get a better life. They should not choose it because the westerners sing praise of it.

And now u talk about something completely different. U r claiming we should not compare with china since it is not a democratic country. Why not ? Why compare

Singapore Versus India + Hong Kong

and not

Singapore + China against Hong Kong + India ?

U r again out of point

I also realise u refuse to answer on your civil servant reply. I pasted it again for u to reply

I got to ask also... wat happened to your civil servant reply ? u claim all civil servants cannot vote and they do not deserve to vote in your ideal model of democracy. So it is no longer one person one vote anymore. So wat is your stand on tis matter now ?

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by Atobe @ Sun, 03 Aug 2008 02:31:20 +0800

Atobe — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 02:31:20 +0800

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

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.

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by Jingojingjing @ Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:53:39 +0800

Jingojingjing — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:53:39 +0800

Originally posted by redDUST:

you're off to a good start. 57 words.

If IBA is going to 'do us in', why no action taken against IBA ?

Must perform due diligence or not you say?

Should take action against them before they 'do us in' right or not dae?

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by redDUST @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:17:41 +0800

redDUST — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:17:41 +0800

Originally posted by Beautiful951:

Ok then shall we restart the whole thing all over again?

mmmmm...when i last checked, stupidissmart replied, so we will wait for atobe to counter now....

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by Beautiful951 @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:54:11 +0800

Beautiful951 — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:54:11 +0800

Ok then shall we restart the whole thing all over again?

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by stupidissmart @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:46:03 +0800

stupidissmart — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:46:03 +0800

-_____-

tat is because u have only one point ma... we r squabbering on dozens of points -___-

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by redDUST @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:42:05 +0800

redDUST — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:42:05 +0800

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

I can try to be more economical with words but the fact tat the other party is bringing in more and more things in, there is little I can do

Anyway I myself also don't recommend u to read because 90% of the replies is just squabbering over the choice of word and not on important issues.

you're off to a good start. 57 words.

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by stupidissmart @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:39:47 +0800

stupidissmart — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:39:47 +0800

I can try to be more economical with words but the fact tat the other party is bringing in more and more things in, there is little I can do

Anyway I myself also don't recommend u to read because 90% of the replies is just squabbering over the choice of word and not on important issues.

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by redDUST @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:35:08 +0800

redDUST — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:35:08 +0800

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

I agree with u. The sad thing is there r too many issues in the reply tat it becomes long in the end. It seems the number of issues r expanded with more replies than contract.

I had given hope tat people actually read tis thread anyway...

you mean given up hope?

all the more you should be more economical with your words, becos the forumers will start reading again. hence, your case will more likely be heard/read (whether right or not)

otherwise, you just wasted your productive waking hours crafting your reply to a reader of 1.

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by stupidissmart @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:33:23 +0800

stupidissmart — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:33:23 +0800

YES! i crossed over to page 9!

another page to open for the reply

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by stupidissmart @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:31:54 +0800

stupidissmart — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:31:54 +0800

I agree with u. The sad thing is there r too many issues in the reply tat it becomes long in the end. It seems the number of issues r expanded with more replies than contract.

I had given up hope tat people actually read tis thread anyway... (corrected)

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by Beautiful951 @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:31:33 +0800

Beautiful951 — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:31:33 +0800

congratulations

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by redDUST @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:30:43 +0800

redDUST — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:30:43 +0800

YES! i crossed over to page 9!

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by redDUST @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:30:10 +0800

redDUST — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:30:10 +0800

Originally posted by Beautiful951:

good idea. Lets keep posting until we put this thing on the next page ehh?

only a temporary solution leh, and then the whole shabang repeats itself....

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by stupidissmart @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:29:18 +0800

stupidissmart — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:29:18 +0800

it is actually easier for me to read back messages if they r on the same page :p

u know the "find on this page" option is easy to travel to and fro within the same page :p

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by Beautiful951 @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:27:53 +0800

Beautiful951 — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:27:53 +0800

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

considering his lousy attitude and tons of insults, I have no choice but to reply on all his points and make sure he eat back all his words.

Yes. But if you make long paragraphs and text, its more prudent to try to write so that it seems interesting so that people will read right? I hope I have not offended you in any way. Just that like few people reading it. I thought I say something about it.

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by Beautiful951 @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:26:13 +0800

Beautiful951 — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:26:13 +0800

Originally posted by redDUST:

as i don't read 'em, scrolling down also become tedious....

good idea. Lets keep posting until we put this thing on the next page ehh?

Recent Posts in 'IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights' | sgForums.com

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by stupidissmart @ Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:03:02 +0800

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by Atobe @ Sun, 03 Aug 2008 02:31:20 +0800

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by Jingojingjing @ Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:53:39 +0800

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by redDUST @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:17:41 +0800

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by Beautiful951 @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:54:11 +0800

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by stupidissmart @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:46:03 +0800

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by redDUST @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:42:05 +0800

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by stupidissmart @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:39:47 +0800

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by redDUST @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:35:08 +0800

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by stupidissmart @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:33:23 +0800

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by stupidissmart @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:31:54 +0800

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by Beautiful951 @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:31:33 +0800

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by redDUST @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:30:43 +0800

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by redDUST @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:30:10 +0800

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by stupidissmart @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:29:18 +0800

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by Beautiful951 @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:27:53 +0800

IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights replied by Beautiful951 @ Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:26:13 +0800