Pro-Tibet cowards only attack little girls
CharlesLiu
Huq in London, then it's crippled paralympian Jin Jin - now a 17 year
old Japanese table tennis olympian Ai Fukuhara, who trains in China
and has been a good will ambassador for Japan and China, was jumpped
by a Tibetan from Taiwan:
http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/cn/thread-38991-1-1.html
Why don't you people pick on someone yor own size, instead of going
after little girls? One legged little girles too?
Man, you people must fee real brave.
Lpro...@aol.com
What do you expect from the spokeman of Voice of Tibet. Attacking
handicap girl in wheel chair is FANTASTIC.
Fellatia
MOST U.S. CONSUMERS are rejecting TOYS and other PLASTIC ITEMS made in
Chinkyland -- we don't want our babies and young kids poisoned and
BRAIN DAMAGED! And soon the civilized world will join in rejecting
most Chinese exports, for the same reason(s).
And what really galls us is that the CHINK goons and thugs don't care
-- about quality or purity or safety!
But not surprising ... after all, they routinely murder their new-born
girls because their sick "CULTURE" tells them boys are better!
Bah, and a POX on all Chinks! May BIRD FLU engulf all of you!
bmo...@nyx.net
There are childish and unreasonable people everywhere...
Even Jin Jing, who only two weeks ago was crowned by the media as "the
Smiling Angel" for her valiant defence of the torch in Paris, has been
subjected to vicious attacks.
Why?
She dared to suggest that a boycott of Carrefour might not be the best
idea, since 99 per cent of its 40,000 employees are Chinese and 95 per
cent of its products are from China.
"Jin Jing is bull !" wrote one outraged netizen from Shandong, "I
think she's a traitor."
Another from Chengdu added: "Someone goes to France once and thinks
she's French. Jin Jing speaks with the voice of an utterly brainless
evil-eyed wolf traitor."
Others went further, using shocking language and attacking her for her
handicap: she has only one leg.
ltl...@hotmail.com
A lot of these Tibetan exiles are misguided. Many of these folks have
never been in Tibet. The Tibet on their mind is the real Tibet. Yet
they think they are better than the millions of real Tibetans in
Tibet. Their means is also odd.
Recently, I begin to think they are not responding to the needs of the
real Tibetans. These exiles are a frustrated bunch. And they are
responding to what have bappened in the west. Since China bashing is
becoming fahsionable, they just want to be at the center of this China
and Chinese bashing party. Hence they will do all sorts of strange
things to attract attention. Luckily, they can also get some money
from westrn countries.
What the spokeman of Vocie of Tibet siad is revealing. His calculation
is not about Tibet. His primarily concern is about international
publicity. However, the Tibet problem is a Chinese problem. The
solution may go through the Chinese poeple. However, these exiles's
protest and Chinese bashing are carried out to enrage the Chinese
poeple and make their goal further and further away. A new
development in China is that some now said it openly "Anyone who
negotiates with the DL clique is a traitor." Of course, if their goal
is to attract attention as a way to get money, they are doing it
nicely.
bmo...@nyx.net
It seems that even the poor one-legged fencer is now being branded a
traitor by many Chinese. Funny how people on this NG talk a lot about
how mean a few people in France were to her but keep quiet about what
Chinese are doing to her. You guys sure have a lot of double
standards...
"Someone goes to France once and thinks
she's French. Jin Jing speaks with the voice of an utterly brainless
evil-eyed wolf traitor."
Raymond
>On Apr 28, 3:30?pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 1:31?am, Lproud...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 27, 7:03?pm, CharlesLiu <chliu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > It happened agin. First it was petite children's TV show host Konnie
>> > > Huq ?in London, then it's crippled paralympian Jin Jin - now a 17 year
>> > > old Japanese table tennis olympian Ai Fukuhara, who trains in China
>> > > and has been a good will ambassador for Japan and China, was jumpped
>> > > by a Tibetan from Taiwan:
>>
>> > >http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/cn/thread-38991-1-1.html
>>
>> > > Why don't you people pick on someone yor own size, instead of going
>> > > after little girls? One legged little girles too?
>>
>> > > Man, you people must fee real brave.
>>
>> > What do you expect from the spokeman of Voice of Tibet. Attacking
>> > handicap girl in wheel chair is FANTASTIC.
>>
>> >http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=d9Amlz2Jvro
>>
>> A lot of these Tibetan exiles are misguided. Many of these folks have
>> never been in Tibet. The Tibet on their mind is the real Tibet. Yet
>> they think they are better than the millions of real Tibetans in
>> Tibet. Their means is also odd.
>>
>> Recently, I begin to think they are not responding to the needs of the
>> real Tibetans. These exiles are a frustrated bunch. And they are
>> responding to what have bappened in the west. ?Since China bashing is
>> becoming fahsionable, they just want to be at the center of this China
>> and Chinese bashing party. Hence they will do all sorts of strange
>> things to attract attention. Luckily, they can also get some money
>> from westrn countries.
>>
>> What the spokeman of Vocie of Tibet siad is revealing. His calculation
>> is not about Tibet. His primarily concern is about international
>> publicity. However, the Tibet problem is a Chinese problem. The
>> solution may go through the Chinese poeple. However, these exiles's
>> protest and Chinese bashing are carried out to enrage the Chinese
>> poeple ?and make their goal further and further away. A new
>> development in China is that some now said it openly "Anyone who
>> negotiates with the DL clique is a traitor."
>
>It seems that even the poor one-legged fencer is now being branded a
>traitor by many Chinese. Funny how people on this NG talk a lot about
>how mean a few people in France were to her but keep quiet about what
>Chinese are doing to her. You guys sure have a lot of double
>standards...
>
>"Someone goes to France once and thinks
>she's French. Jin Jing speaks with the voice of an utterly brainless
>evil-eyed wolf traitor."
Nothing but the disinformation service of your western propaganda
machine. Some anonymous guy talking bullshit over the internet, and it
was conveniently picked up by your selectively blind western media.
You don't know how stupid it looks, and you again are parading in
front of the world with the lies of your free press. How pathetic.
bmo...@nyx.net
Dang, Ray - you have your schtick down, don't ya? You have been well-
trained in logical thought and using demonization as a means of verbal
warfare. Too bad *the truth* is one of the main casualties of trying
to have a discussion with you, though. Kinda wrecks your street cred,
ya know?
CharlesLiu
You bet. There was a minority voice critical to Jin Jin, but the
majority voice of reason in China blogsphere has came out in support
of her.
Of course China hater like BO would rather ignore that:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%E9%87%91%E6%99%B6+%E6%B1%89%E5%A5%B8
“Jin Jin does not support Carfore boycott”
“If Jin Jin can be labeled HJ, who can’t?”
“Why call Jin Jin HJ?”
“Nationalist “Boxers” call Jin Jin HJ”
“Shocked to see Jin Jin labeled HJ”
“Jin Jin’s one sentence turning her into HJ, sending chill up readers
spine”
“Calling Jin Jing HJ is the first sign of the world gone wrong.”
“Jin Jin from hero to zero(HJ) - a Chinese farce”
“defaming [Jin Jin] is not patriotism”
“Jin Jin from hero to zero - patriotism has lost its wit”
This proves China haters like to twist the facts to suit their anti-
Chinese agenda. When they attack the ordinary Chinese netters as
irrational, rabid - it is no longer about the Chinese government is
it?
> machine. Some anonymous guy talking bullshit over the internet, and it
> was conveniently picked up by your selectively blind western media.
> You don't know how stupid it looks, and you again are parading in
> front of the world with the lies of your free press. How pathetic.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Of course, if their goal
> >> is to attract attention as a way to get money, they are doing it
> >> nicely.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
OD
What's the agenda of those that claim pro-Tibetans are cowards who only
attack little girls?
Raymond
Are you so disgusted that your media tricks don't seem to work any
more?
Raymond
<chli...@hotmail.com> wrote:
There are always more than enough compradors in China who work foreign
interest. Sabotaging public opinion is part of their designated task
to earn their daily blood money. The good thing is, they can never
represent the voice of Chinese people.
ltl...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are comparing apples and oranges.
"Free Tibet" is a movement supported by CIA/NED an dother quasi
government agencies money. The Tibetan exiles' activities are goal
directed. Concerning the attack, another netter had point out, the
spoken persion stating in public that such attack the defenseless girl
was good. That is, good for publicity. Hence, the attack was a mean to
an end subordinated to thier pay masters' wish.
The bigger issue, attacking the girl as well as the overall effort to
disrupt the Olympic torch relay or the Olympic games do not in anyway
benefit the Tibetans in Tibet. China will not give up their legitimate
claim on Tibet simply because of theartics peformed by a small number
of people.
ltl...@hotmail.com
Actually, one cannot really tell the nationality of a netter.
Raymond
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes, but it's not difficult to tell whose interest they work for. All
it takes is for people to ask themselves the question: "Why would they
do that?". The answer is often quite self-explanatory.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<e0f18d0d-18d1-4f4b...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>):
> "Free Tibet" is a movement supported by CIA/NED an dother quasi government
> agencies money. The Tibetan exiles' activities are goal directed.
Two strange sentences.
The first is false. The second seems to have been meant as an insult; but are
we really supposed to model ourselves after non-goal directed people?
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
OD
How can you even say apples and oranges when you completely fail to grasp
what is being compared. It's the posters bmoore and CharlesLiu and their
agendas. If CharlesLiu thinks bmoore has an agenda of demonizing Chinese
then by the same standard he is obviously guilty of demonizing Tibetans.
Something you seem to also be willing to take part on, even when you claim
others are doing it to the Chinese.
ltl...@hotmail.com
Again, Lui and BM are not comparable because the evidence they used
are of different. In one case, the attack of the defenseless girl is
lauded by the Vocie of Tibet spokeperson as something good because
such attack promote international publicity. Implaction: The attack is
part of the plan and/or the attack conform to their overall goal to
gain publicity. There is no comparable spokeperson and comparable plan
for the verbal attack on the same girl by netter who may or may not be
Chinese or pro-China.
> Something you seem to also be willing to take part on, even when you claim
> others are doing it to the Chinese.
China bashing or anything bashing is a matter of whether the criticism
is from a position of fact and logic. Let me lay out my case against
the "free tibet" supporters.
1. According to what I know, most of the "free tibet" supporters
including the exiles themselves have never set foot in Tibet. Logical
inference: Their conception of Tibet is quite different from the real
Tibet. The above conclusion is also the view of Orville Schell, the
author of "VIRTUAL TIBET," according to his expereince iwth the
exiles.
2. Since the supporters' protests were not grounded on what have
happened in the real Tibet, their activities have to be triggered by
something outside of Tibet rather than from events inside of Tibet. In
this case, protests and publicty stunts were planned and carried from
outside of Tibet. There has been no evidence of peaceful portest
inside of Tibet. The western media had to falsify information to
rectify the lack of evidence. They used the video footage in which
Nepalese policemen were beating Tibetan protestors as evidence to
prove that peaceful protests had occured in Tibet and they were
suppressed.
3. It is obvious that the supporters' publicity stunts go nowhere, as
expected, except enraging many Chinese people inside and outside of
China. The results beg the question: "Why the publicity stunts which
could not furtehr their avowed goal?" Two answers: First, as
suggested by the beginning post of this thread, the 'free tibet'
supporters are cowards, they dare not do anythings besides stunts like
attacking little girl. Second, they need to stunsts and the associated
publicity to continue receive funding.
OD
If you are not going to address the obvious attempt at demonization of
Tibetans by Charlesliu with the words, "Pro-Tibet cowards only attack little
girls" then there is nothing further to discuss.
>> Something you seem to also be willing to take part on, even when you
>> claim others are doing it to the Chinese.
>
> China bashing or anything bashing is a matter of whether the criticism
> is from a position of fact and logic. Let me lay out my case against
> the "free tibet" supporters.
People can use "facts" and "logic" to demonize others. You know it, since
you try to do it all the time.
> 1. According to what I know, most of the "free tibet" supporters
> including the exiles themselves have never set foot in Tibet. Logical
> inference: Their conception of Tibet is quite different from the real
> Tibet. The above conclusion is also the view of Orville Schell, the
> author of "VIRTUAL TIBET," according to his expereince iwth the
> exiles.
>
> 2. Since the supporters' protests were not grounded on what have
> happened in the real Tibet, their activities have to be triggered by
> something outside of Tibet rather than from events inside of Tibet. In
> this case, protests and publicty stunts were planned and carried from
> outside of Tibet. There has been no evidence of peaceful portest
> inside of Tibet. The western media had to falsify information to
> rectify the lack of evidence. They used the video footage in which
> Nepalese policemen were beating Tibetan protestors as evidence to
> prove that peaceful protests had occured in Tibet and they were
> suppressed.
A quote was recently published here of SAC from a Canadian tourist that said
days of peaceful demonstrations took place before the rioting. You can find
it in the "let them have a national referendum" thread.
> 3. It is obvious that the supporters' publicity stunts go nowhere, as
> expected, except enraging many Chinese people inside and outside of
> China. The results beg the question: "Why the publicity stunts which
> could not furtehr their avowed goal?" Two answers: First, as
> suggested by the beginning post of this thread, the 'free tibet'
> supporters are cowards, they dare not do anythings besides stunts like
> attacking little girl. Second, they need to stunsts and the associated
> publicity to continue receive funding.
In other words, all pro-Tibetans are greedy. Another attempt at
demonization.
ltl...@hotmail.com
If one has problem with the post by Charles Liu, he or she should feel
free to criticize him. My previous post simply pointed out one cannot
compare the attack by Tibetans and the verbal attack by bloggers from
Chinese websites.
>
> >> Something you seem to also be willing to take part on, even when you
> >> claim others are doing it to the Chinese.
>
> > China bashing or anything bashing is a matter of whether the criticism
> > is from a position of fact and logic. Let me lay out my case against
> > the "free tibet" supporters.
>
> People can use "facts" and "logic" to demonize others. You know it, since
> you try to do it all the time.
How so?
>
> > 1. According to what I know, most of the "free tibet" supporters
> > including the exiles themselves have never set foot in Tibet. Logical
> > inference: Their conception of Tibet is quite different from the real
> > Tibet. The above conclusion is also the view of Orville Schell, the
> > author of "VIRTUAL TIBET," according to his expereince iwth the
> > exiles.
>
> > 2. Since the supporters' protests were not grounded on what have
> > happened in the real Tibet, their activities have to be triggered by
> > something outside of Tibet rather than from events inside of Tibet. In
> > this case, protests and publicty stunts were planned and carried from
> > outside of Tibet. There has been no evidence of peaceful portest
> > inside of Tibet. The western media had to falsify information to
> > rectify the lack of evidence. They used the video footage in which
> > Nepalese policemen were beating Tibetan protestors as evidence to
> > prove that peaceful protests had occured in Tibet and they were
> > suppressed.
>
> A quote was recently published here of SAC from a Canadian tourist that said
> days of peaceful demonstrations took place before the rioting. You can find
> it in the "let them have a national referendum" thread.
The lack of objective evidences like pictures and video clip had been
raised for several weeks. If you think the Canadian tourist would
change the situation, please post the link.
>
> > 3. It is obvious that the supporters' publicity stunts go nowhere, as
> > expected, except enraging many Chinese people inside and outside of
> > China. The results beg the question: "Why the publicity stunts which
> > could not furtehr their avowed goal?" Two answers: First, as
> > suggested by the beginning post of this thread, the 'free tibet'
> > supporters are cowards, they dare not do anythings besides stunts like
> > attacking little girl. Second, they need to stunsts and the associated
> > publicity to continue receive funding.
>
> In other words, all pro-Tibetans are greedy. Another attempt at
> demonization.
Objectively speaking, it is true that all sctivist organizations are
not productive by themselves. The only they sell is "holier-than-
thou." Hence they need handouts all the times. In order to get
handouts, they need publicity stunts and a fashionable target. "Free
Tibet" groups are certainly these kind of organizations.
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
OD
Which is what I did!
> My previous post simply pointed out one cannot
> compare the attack by Tibetans and the verbal attack by bloggers from
> Chinese websites.
Then what you said had nothing to do with what I said, and you're wasting my
time.
>>>> Something you seem to also be willing to take part on, even when
>>>> you claim others are doing it to the Chinese.
>>
>>> China bashing or anything bashing is a matter of whether the
>>> criticism is from a position of fact and logic. Let me lay out my
>>> case against the "free tibet" supporters.
>>
>> People can use "facts" and "logic" to demonize others. You know it,
>> since you try to do it all the time.
>
> How so?
See your words below.
>>> 1. According to what I know, most of the "free tibet" supporters
>>> including the exiles themselves have never set foot in Tibet.
>>> Logical inference: Their conception of Tibet is quite different
>>> from the real Tibet. The above conclusion is also the view of
>>> Orville Schell, the author of "VIRTUAL TIBET," according to his
>>> expereince iwth the exiles.
>>
>>> 2. Since the supporters' protests were not grounded on what have
>>> happened in the real Tibet, their activities have to be triggered by
>>> something outside of Tibet rather than from events inside of Tibet.
>>> In this case, protests and publicty stunts were planned and carried
>>> from outside of Tibet. There has been no evidence of peaceful
>>> portest inside of Tibet. The western media had to falsify
>>> information to rectify the lack of evidence. They used the video
>>> footage in which Nepalese policemen were beating Tibetan protestors
>>> as evidence to prove that peaceful protests had occured in Tibet
>>> and they were suppressed.
>>
>> A quote was recently published here of SAC from a Canadian tourist
>> that said days of peaceful demonstrations took place before the
>> rioting. You can find it in the "let them have a national
>> referendum" thread.
>
> The lack of objective evidences like pictures and video clip had been
> raised for several weeks. If you think the Canadian tourist would
> change the situation, please post the link.
"I want to make one thing clear because all of the major news outlet
are ignoring a very important fact. Yes the chinese government bears a
huge amount of blame for this situation. But the protests yesterday
were NOT peaceful. The original protests from the past few days may
have been, but all of the eyewitnesses in this room agree the
protestors yesterday went from attacking Chinese police to attacking
innocent people very very quickly. They appeared to target Muslim and
Han Chinese individuals and businesses first but many Tibetans were
also caught in the crossfire."
>>> 3. It is obvious that the supporters' publicity stunts go nowhere,
>>> as expected, except enraging many Chinese people inside and outside
>>> of China. The results beg the question: "Why the publicity stunts
>>> which could not furtehr their avowed goal?" Two answers: First, as
>>> suggested by the beginning post of this thread, the 'free tibet'
>>> supporters are cowards, they dare not do anythings besides stunts
>>> like attacking little girl. Second, they need to stunsts and the
>>> associated publicity to continue receive funding.
>>
>> In other words, all pro-Tibetans are greedy. Another attempt at
>> demonization.
>
> Objectively speaking, it is true that all sctivist organizations are
> not productive by themselves. The only they sell is "holier-than-
> thou." Hence they need handouts all the times. In order to get
> handouts, they need publicity stunts and a fashionable target. "Free
> Tibet" groups are certainly these kind of organizations.
Yeah, I got your demonization the first time. No reason to dig yourself in
deeper.
ltl...@hotmail.com
Not true. Your first post of this thread is the following.
"What's the agenda of those that claim pro-Tibetans are cowards who
only
attack little girls?"
You are respoinding to Liu saying those who verbal attacked Jin are
having an agenda.
> > My previous post simply pointed out one cannot
> > compare the attack by Tibetans and the verbal attack by bloggers from
> > Chinese websites.
>
> Then what you said had nothing to do with what I said, and you're wasting my
> time.
Are you saying that the above question from the first post is not a
way to compare the pro-Tibetans attack little girl and netters
verbally attack Jin?
>
> >>>> Something you seem to also be willing to take part on, even when
> >>>> you claim others are doing it to the Chinese.
>
> >>> China bashing or anything bashing is a matter of whether the
> >>> criticism is from a position of fact and logic. Let me lay out my
> >>> case against the "free tibet" supporters.
>
> >> People can use "facts" and "logic" to demonize others. You know it,
> >> since you try to do it all the time.
>
> > How so?
>
> See your words below.
If you don't agree with something, please be specific.
Too bad he did not give more details on what were these "original
protests from the past few days." For instance, who were protesting
against whom and for what reasons. Wihtout the information, how could
one tell a protest is a protest? May be you can provide the original
link.
>
>
>
> >>> 3. It is obvious that the supporters' publicity stunts go nowhere,
> >>> as expected, except enraging many Chinese people inside and outside
> >>> of China. The results beg the question: "Why the publicity stunts
> >>> which could not furtehr their avowed goal?" Two answers: First, as
> >>> suggested by the beginning post of this thread, the 'free tibet'
> >>> supporters are cowards, they dare not do anythings besides stunts
> >>> like attacking little girl. Second, they need to stunsts and the
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
bmo...@nyx.net
That's the damn point, Charles. Ray said there was nothing. Ray is
wrong.
> but the
> majority voice of reason in China blogsphere has came out in support
> of her.
Just like it was only a few people in France who attacked her, but you
make it the focus of your whole "poor Jin Jing" campaign.
And BTW Charles, the "blogosphere" is for losers. It's what happens in
the real world that matters.
> Of course China hater like BO would rather ignore that:
Falsely calling people "China hater" can't mask your hypocrisy,
Charles.
> http://www.google.com/search?q=%E9%87%91%E6%99%B6+%E6%B1%89%E5%A5%B8
>
> “Jin Jin does not support Carfore boycott”
> “If Jin Jin can be labeled HJ, who can’t?”
> “Why call Jin Jin HJ?”
> “Nationalist “Boxers” call Jin Jin HJ”
> “Shocked to see Jin Jin labeled HJ”
> “Jin Jin’s one sentence turning her into HJ, sending chill up readers
> spine”
> “Calling Jin Jing HJ is the first sign of the world gone wrong.”
> “Jin Jin from hero to zero(HJ) - a Chinese farce”
> “defaming [Jin Jin] is not patriotism”
> “Jin Jin from hero to zero - patriotism has lost its wit”
>
> This proves China haters like to twist the facts to suit their anti-
> Chinese agenda.
It only proves that you live in a fantasy world.
> When they attack the ordinary Chinese netters as
> irrational, rabid - it is no longer about the Chinese government is
> it?
People like Ray *are* irrational and rabid. Is he an ordinary netter?
He's certainly a nutcase.
bmo...@nyx.net
In addition to using "facts" and "logic" to demonize people, you
always claim ignorance when people call you on it. This doesn't change
the fact that you do it at least as much as anyone on this NG. It's
called the truth and you can't change it with your steady stream of
you-know-what.
bmo...@nyx.net
No. That's not what he said. You misunderstood again.
You have no point, LT. You never do. You just try to rebut all
arguments which imply things that you wish weren't true.
People are on to you. You're not fooling anyone. Pfffft.
Peter Terpstra
> Sabotaging public opinion is part of their designated task
> to earn their daily blood money.
Is this the voice of "Big Brother" speaking here?
Maybe a forbidden film in China because it tells about the danger of
communism, all people become machine, no heart and no right to speak for
themselves.
Kind Regards,
Peter
--
mailto:pe...@dharma.dyndns.biz
OD
No, that's not what I said. I'm accusing Charles of having an agenda.
>>> My previous post simply pointed out one cannot
>>> compare the attack by Tibetans and the verbal attack by bloggers
>>> from Chinese websites.
>>
>> Then what you said had nothing to do with what I said, and you're
>> wasting my time.
>
> Are you saying that the above question from the first post is not a
> way to compare the pro-Tibetans attack little girl and netters
> verbally attack Jin?
Yes, that's what I have been saying.
>>>>>> Something you seem to also be willing to take part on, even when
>>>>>> you claim others are doing it to the Chinese.
>>
>>>>> China bashing or anything bashing is a matter of whether the
>>>>> criticism is from a position of fact and logic. Let me lay out my
>>>>> case against the "free tibet" supporters.
>>
>>>> People can use "facts" and "logic" to demonize others. You know it,
>>>> since you try to do it all the time.
>>
>>> How so?
>>
>> See your words below.
>
> If you don't agree with something, please be specific.
I specifically don't agree with any of it.
You'll have to ask the original poster to do that. A Mr bluej. Although
he's hiding from it now that he sees it doesn't support his pro-China agenda
like he thought it did.
bmo...@nyx.net
Yeah, and that's why Charles has walked away from this discussion.
Because he does. The only reason I brought up the Chinese criticism of
Jin Jing is because ever since she was attacked by 1 person or maybe a
few people in France Charles has turned it into a full-fledged attack
on the Chinese people. But now that the young woman has said something
that pissed off a number of Chinese, where they are saying nasty
things about her on Chinese blogs, Charles is mute. Okay...
ltl...@hotmail.com
Not true. You are comparing the two. In case your memory fails it.
Here it is:
"It's the posters bmoore and CharlesLiu and their agendas. If
CharlesLiu thinks bmoore has an agenda of demonizing Chinese then by
the same standard he is obviously guilty of demonizing Tibetans."
>
> >>>>>> Something you seem to also be willing to take part on, even when
> >>>>>> you claim others are doing it to the Chinese.
>
> >>>>> China bashing or anything bashing is a matter of whether the
> >>>>> criticism is from a position of fact and logic. Let me lay out my
> >>>>> case against the "free tibet" supporters.
>
> >>>> People can use "facts" and "logic" to demonize others. You know it,
> >>>> since you try to do it all the time.
>
> >>> How so?
>
> >> See your words below.
>
> > If you don't agree with something, please be specific.
>
> I specifically don't agree with any of it.
I see. I wrote most pro-tibetans, including the exciles, had not set
foot in tibet. And you don't agree with it. I wrote they the Tibet on
their minds was not the real Tibet and the same conlcusion had been
reached by Orveill Schell. And you don't agree with it. It is fine
that you don't disagree. Please explain why you don't agree.
>
>
> >>>>> 1. According to what I know, most of the "free tibet" supporters
> >>>>> including the exiles themselves have never set foot in Tibet.
> >>>>> Logical inference: Their conception of Tibet is quite different
> >>>>> from the real Tibet. The above conclusion is also the view of
> >>>>> Orville Schell, the author of "VIRTUAL TIBET," according to his
> >>>>> expereince iwth the exiles.
>
> >>>>> 2. Since the supporters' protests were not grounded on what have
> >>>>> happened in the real Tibet, their activities have to be triggered
> >>>>> by something outside of Tibet rather than from events inside of
> >>>>> Tibet. In this case, protests and publicty stunts were planned
> >>>>> and carried from outside of Tibet. There has been no evidence of
> >>>>> peaceful portest inside of Tibet. The western media had to falsify
> >>>>> information to rectify the lack of evidence. They used the video
> >>>>> footage in which Nepalese policemen were beating Tibetan
> >>>>> protestors as evidence to prove that peaceful protests had
> >>>>> occured in Tibet and they were suppressed.
>
> >>>> A quote was recently published here of SAC from a Canadian tourist
> >>>> that said days of peaceful demonstrations took place before the
> >>>> rioting. You can find it in the "let them have a national
> >>>> referendum" thread.
>
> >>> The lack of objective evidences like pictures and video clip had
> >>> been raised for several weeks. If you think the Canadian tourist
> >>> would change the situation, please post the
>
OD
Sorry, but you simply just don't have a clue what is being said here. I
finished with this.
>>>>>>>> Something you seem to also be willing to take part on, even
>>>>>>>> when you claim others are doing it to the Chinese.
>>
>>>>>>> China bashing or anything bashing is a matter of whether the
>>>>>>> criticism is from a position of fact and logic. Let me lay out
>>>>>>> my case against the "free tibet" supporters.
>>
>>>>>> People can use "facts" and "logic" to demonize others. You know
>>>>>> it, since you try to do it all the time.
>>
>>>>> How so?
>>
>>>> See your words below.
>>
>>> If you don't agree with something, please be specific.
>>
>> I specifically don't agree with any of it.
>
> I see. I wrote most pro-tibetans, including the exciles, had not set
> foot in tibet. And you don't agree with it. I wrote they the Tibet on
> their minds was not the real Tibet and the same conlcusion had been
> reached by Orveill Schell. And you don't agree with it. It is fine
> that you don't disagree. Please explain why you don't agree.
You're forgetting the Tibetans living in China.
ltl...@hotmail.com
What about them? In what way you are not one of those who have an
unrealistic view about Tibet or China.
>
>
> >>>>>>> 1. According to what I know, most of the "free tibet" supporters
> >>>>>>> including the exiles themselves have never set foot in Tibet.
> >>>>>>> Logical inference: Their conception of Tibet is quite different
> >>>>>>> from the real Tibet. The above conclusion is also the view of
>
OD
Do you think they have unrealistic views of Tibet?
>In what way you are not one of those who have an
> unrealistic view about Tibet or China.
If you have a problem with any of my views of China or Tibet then state it.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<7f75b026-43bd-4b9c...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
> China bashing or anything bashing is a matter of whether the criticism is
> from a position of fact and logic.
Fact, the government of China is not elected.
Fact, the people of China are not free.
More facts on request.
Toby
"Raymond" <ni...@nizuy.com> wrote in message
news:nc1d14hqrhnvoi3n9...@4ax.com...
> was conveniently picked up by your selectively blind western media.
> You don't know how stupid it looks, and you again are parading in
> front of the world with the lies of your free press. How pathetic.
Raymond, I wonder if you have any idea how idiotic you appear to us in the
West, and what a poor picture you paint of all Chinese for anyone with half
a brain.
Toby
I keep wondering when the real media tricks of the propaganda machines of
the China Daily and CCTV are going to be recognized by the people of the
PRC. Probably not for a long time, as you are all so scared of thinking and
seeking information independently. It's no secret why: open your mouth with
the least criticism and you get thrown into prison like Hu Jia. Better to
keep your head down like the Germans in the 1930s and pretend you don't see
what's going on...
In China online censorship is called "Harmonizing the Internet". I love
that.
ltl...@hotmail.com
They will have a realistic view of Tibet. But they did not attack the
Olympic or other silly stunts to garner international publicity. All
pubicity stunts were done by pro-Tibetans outside of Tibet, not from
inside.
OD
Why didn't you mention the events within Tibet that have taken place over
the last couple of months? What do these events say to you about how
Tibetans feel?
ltl...@hotmail.com
The event that one couldl be sure because there were ample evidences
was a two-day riots targeting the Han and Hui business people in
Lhasa. All other supposed events were unsubstantiated and
unsibstantiable. Yes. You mentioned a Canadian had mentioned some
protests. But I doubt he had observed anything himself. Else there
would not be any "may be" in his statement. In comparison, the pro-
Tibetans outside Tibet waged a more extensive campaign filled with
silly stunts aiming to attract international publicity.
How do they feel? Who are the "they"? The rioters, the victims of the
riots? All Tibetans? Please feel free to answer your own question and
substantiate it.
OD
I MAY HAVE BEEN of the opinion you were here for honest discussion when I
first posted to SCC, but I see now you are not.
Do you see how language works and how the Canadian tourist could use "may
be" without calling into question the peacefulness or existence of the
earlier protests?
> How do they feel? Who are the "they"? The rioters, the victims of the
> riots? All Tibetans? Please feel free to answer your own question and
> substantiate it.
You're the one that making the claim to know who the "pro-Tibetans" are and
where they live, you substantiate it. If you know that Tibetans living in
Tibet are not "pro-Tibet" then substantiate it.
bmo...@nyx.net
> > Why didn't you mention the events within Tibet that have taken place over
> > the last couple of months? What do these events say to you about how
> > Tibetans feel?
>
> The event that one couldl be sure because there were ample evidences
> was a two-day riots targeting the Han and Hui business people in
> Lhasa. All other supposed events were unsubstantiated and
> unsibstantiable. Yes. You mentioned a Canadian had mentioned some
> protests. But I doubt he had observed anything himself. Else there
> would not be any "may be" in his statement. In comparison, the pro-
> Tibetans outside Tibet waged a more extensive campaign filled with
> silly stunts aiming to attract international publicity.
>
> How do they feel? Who are the "they"? The rioters, the victims of the
> riots? All Tibetans? Please feel free to answer your own question and
> substantiate it.
For LT Lee, all claims which cast a shadow on the Chinese government
are "unsubstantiated".
LT Lee's silly picture of the world has little to do with the way it
really is. But he works very hard
to try to fool people.
OD
And as long as the Chinese government continues to try to keep everyone
ignorant, LT will always have lots of work.
ltl...@hotmail.com
Well, if one was present during a protest, either the protest is
peaceful or not peaceful. There would not be any "may be." One,
however, would use may be if he did not really see the protest but
assumed one. Anyway, the vague statement is quite meaningless without
the minimal information on who was protesting against whom and for
what reasons and other collaberating evidence.
>
> > How do they feel? Who are the "they"? The rioters, the victims of the
> > riots? All Tibetans? Please feel free to answer your own question and
> > substantiate it.
>
> You're the one that making the claim to know who the "pro-Tibetans" are and
> where they live, you substantiate it. If you know that Tibetans living in
> Tibet are not "pro-Tibet" then substantiate it.
No. I do not include the real Tibetans, ie, those who had spent a
large chunk of their lives in Tibet. As a matter of fact, they do not
generate much news although Xinhua news agency report statements made
by their political and religious leaders. Those who generte news to
garner international publicity are invarible outside of Tibet.
bmo...@nyx.net
> > I MAY HAVE BEEN of the opinion you were here for honest discussion when I
> > first posted to SCC, but I see now you are not.
>
> > Do you see how language works and how the Canadian tourist could use "may
> > be" without calling into question the peacefulness or existence of the
> > earlier protests?
>
> Well, if one was present during a protest, either the protest is
> peaceful or not peaceful. There would not be any "may be." One,
> however, would use may be if he did not really see the protest but
> assumed one. Anyway, the vague statement is quite meaningless without
> the minimal information on who was protesting against whom and for
> what reasons and other collaberating evidence.
He's on to you, LT. We have seen this scenario dozens of times: a well-
meaning, thoughtful person comes to s.c.c
and tries to have a discussion with LT Lee. LT seems genuine at first,
but after a few rounds the person realizes that LT is
dishonest and stops conversing with him.
It's happened many times, LT. What do you make of that?
It's pretty clear that the reason so many people get frustrated trying
to converse with you is
because there's something *wrong* with your attempts at discussion.
Can you really not see that?
> > > How do they feel? Who are the "they"? The rioters, the victims of the
> > > riots? All Tibetans? Please feel free to answer your own question and
> > > substantiate it.
>
> > You're the one that making the claim to know who the "pro-Tibetans" are and
> > where they live, you substantiate it. If you know that Tibetans living in
> > Tibet are not "pro-Tibet" then substantiate it.
>
> No. I do not include the real Tibetans, ie, those who had spent a
> large chunk of their lives in Tibet. As a matter of fact, they do not
> generate much news although Xinhua news agency report statements made
> by their political and religious leaders. Those who generte news to
> garner international publicity are invarible outside of Tibet.
You really are shameless. There is huge unhappiness in Tibet but you
think by not talking about it you
can pretend it doesn't exist. You can't. You're not fooling anyone.
You can't hide the truth with semantics
and deceit.
OD
The words were "may have been" and you don't understand how they were used.
Not going to argue semantics with you. I'm finished with this.
>>> How do they feel? Who are the "they"? The rioters, the victims of
>>> the riots? All Tibetans? Please feel free to answer your own
>>> question and substantiate it.
>>
>> You're the one that making the claim to know who the "pro-Tibetans"
>> are and where they live, you substantiate it. If you know that
>> Tibetans living in Tibet are not "pro-Tibet" then substantiate it.
>
> No. I do not include the real Tibetans, ie, those who had spent a
> large chunk of their lives in Tibet. As a matter of fact, they do not
> generate much news although Xinhua news agency report statements made
> by their political and religious leaders. Those who generte news to
> garner international publicity are invarible outside of Tibet.
You don't include real Tibetans because they are not reported on by Xinhua?
You do know they exist don't you? Do you think any of them are pro-Tibetan?
Jim Walsh
(in article
<0dd17e9f-4ab8-469c...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>):
> All pubicity stunts were done by pro-Tibetans outside of Tibet, not from
> inside.
There weren't any publicity stunts; there were peaceful demonstrations that
degenerated into a riot because of police brutality.
What we are all talking about occurred in Lhasa. Your claim that those events
"were done by pro-Tibetans outside Tibet" is one of the stupidest things you
have said in a long time.
And, in your case, the bar is set very low.
Raymond
That is nothing but your biased disinformation service. The voice of
dissent is common in Chinese society, but none of them has anything to
do with destabilizing the government and the rule of law. Because of
that, you intentionally ignore them and label anti-government behavior
as democratic moment instead. I doubt you would call Bin Laden a
democracy activist, but obviously you want more anti-China Bin Ladens
as many as possible.
Toby
Such paranoia and xenophobia as yours is typical of quite a few Chinese,
unfortunately, and is indicative of a high degree of cogintive dissonance. I
live in Beijing, work in news and I have seen how it works
here when people try to protest or voice concerns. The only reason the very
prevalent discontent of the population has nothing to do with "destabilizing
the government or the rule of law", as you put it, is because of the iron
fist of authority which makes sure that the content of dissent stays within
very narrow bounds, and immediately and severely punishes anyone who tries
to break those bounds. Take Hu Jia for example. We have interviewed him
several times and know his story quite well. The tactics of the authorities
in his case are shameful, but pose a clear warning to any Chinese national
contemplating stepping into taboo territory...
I have been to more than one protest rally and seen the overwhelming police
presence and the extreme degree of control exercised. The fact is that most
of the dissent which happens in the countryside is never known in the West
because of the censorship of the news media in China.
ltl...@hotmail.com
How do you use "MAY HAVE BEEN?" Read your own words from your previous
post.
"I MAY HAVE BEEN of the opinion you were here for honest discussion
when I first posted to SCC, but I see now you are not."
"MAY HAVE BEEN" was used because what follows the "MAY HAVE BEEN" was
about things in your head. It did not have reality unless proven to be
so later. "MAY HAVE BEEN" this and "MAY HAVE BEEN' that are all
assumptions. You don't have to use "MAY HAVE BEEN" if you know me. The
same, if the guy really saw a protest. It was either peaceful or not
peaceful to him. Of course, he could say "MAY BE DESCRIBED AS" if he
wanted to accomodate other people's view.
OD
bmo...@nyx.net
> >>>> You're the one that making the claim to know who the "pro-Tibetans"
> >>>> are and where they live, you substantiate it. If you know that
> >>>> Tibetans living in Tibet are not "pro-Tibet" then substantiate it.
>
> >>> No. I do not include the real Tibetans, ie, those who had spent a
> >>> large chunk of their lives in Tibet. As a matter of fact, they do
> >>> not generate much news although Xinhua news agency report
> >>> statements made by their political and religious leaders. Those who
> >>> generte news to garner international publicity are invarible
> >>> outside of Tibet.
>
> >> You don't include real Tibetans because they are not reported on by
> >> Xinhua? You do know they exist don't you? Do you think any of them
> >> are pro-Tibetan?
>
> Do you think any of them are pro-Tibetan?
LT doesn't like to answer questions directly when the answer conflicts
with his agenda. It's a hugely dishonest approach, but that's the way
it is...
ltl...@hotmail.com
Do you call human pro-human? Anyway, I am following the usage of the
beginning post. I believe Clarles Liu used pro-Tibetans to describe
all those outsider of Tibet.
OD
I'd start a new thread and ask you the same question, but bmoore is
absolutely right about you and it would just be a waste of my time.
bmo...@nyx.net
Yeah... LT likes to give the appearance that he is interested in real
discussion but the obvious truth is that he's one of the most
dishonest and anti-discussion people posting on these NGs. Now you
know ;-)
Raymond
Fuck you for spreading lies. You may work for western propaganda
machine, but you never really concerns the real interest of Chinese
people. That's why you ignore their voices. What do you know about the
local politics in Chinese society? None what's so ever. Therefore,
stop spreading lies. No one except you ignorant western idiots would
believe what you say. You are prejudiced against the Chinese political
and social systems from the inside out. You are nothing but an
arrogant westerner as far as the Chinese people are concerned.
>here when people try to protest or voice concerns. The only reason the very
>prevalent discontent of the population has nothing to do with "destabilizing
>the government or the rule of law", as you put it, is because of the iron
>fist of authority which makes sure that the content of dissent stays within
>very narrow bounds, and immediately and severely punishes anyone who tries
>to break those bounds. Take Hu Jia for example.
Hu Jia is a fucking convicted criminal. Fuck you for speaking for
criminals. Fuck you for speaking for the force of evil. Fuck you for
forsaking your heavenly God who is the Truth and Justice for your evil
political purposes. May your God punish you for your evil deeds.
In Christ's name, Amen!!!
Now, you can go to hell you western bastard!
We have interviewed him
>several times and know his story quite well. The tactics of the authorities
>in his case are shameful, but pose a clear warning to any Chinese national
>contemplating stepping into taboo territory...
>
>I have been to more than one protest rally and seen the overwhelming police
>presence and the extreme degree of control exercised. The fact is that most
>of the dissent which happens in the countryside is never known in the West
>because of the censorship of the news media in China.
Since you westerners are such evil bastards who are bent on attacking
the legitimate government of China, it would be better if you know as
little as possible about the daily life of Chinese people so that you
would have nothing to distort and fabricate in attacking China.
Jakub A. Krzewicki
contaminated talk.politics.tibet with the following letter:
> Hu Jia is a fucking convicted criminal. Fuck you for speaking for
> criminals. Fuck you for speaking for the force of evil. Fuck you for
> forsaking your heavenly God who is the Truth and Justice for your evil
> political purposes. May your God punish you for your evil deeds.
Yes, you are right, we are the dirty godless spoiled bastards of democratic
revolutions and reforms. So "dirty", so "rotten", so "godless", so
"impudent" that we dare to litigate our own governments and often win the
cases. Would you ever experience such a liberty in China? The worst hink
that people like Hu Jia make is only to speak for such a liberty.
--
tois egregorosin hena kai koinon kosmon einai
ton de koimomenon hekaston eis idion apostrephesthai
Raymond
<ebr...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
>pi眛ek, 2 maja 2008 10:40. carbon entity 'Raymond' <ni...@nizuy.com>
>contaminated talk.politics.tibet with the following letter:
>
>> Hu Jia is a fucking convicted criminal. Fuck you for speaking for
>> criminals. Fuck you for speaking for the force of evil. Fuck you for
>> forsaking your heavenly God who is the Truth and Justice for your evil
>> political purposes. May your God punish you for your evil deeds.
>
>Yes, you are right, we are the dirty godless spoiled bastards of democratic
>revolutions and reforms. So "dirty", so "rotten", so "godless", so
>"impudent" that we dare to litigate our own governments and often win the
>cases. Would you ever experience such a liberty in China? The worst hink
>that people like Hu Jia make is only to speak for such a liberty.
Why is your government so evil that it deserves to be sued in serving
justice? Because it does not even try to speak for the people. It only
speaks for the rich and powerful instead. That is why your western
system creates such illusion that pretends the government has no power
over the court when in fact the government always works with the court
in deceiving the public. It's nothing but an elaborate scheme for
public deception. The power of the government is real and it's there
always. Finding clever ways to hide such power will not make it
magically disappear.
Jakub A. Krzewicki
contaminated talk.politics.tibet with the following letter:
> Why is your government so evil that it deserves to be sued in serving
> justice? Because it does not even try to speak for the people. It only
> speaks for the rich and powerful instead. That is why your western
> system creates such illusion that pretends the government has no power
> over the court when in fact the government always works with the court
> in deceiving the public. It's nothing but an elaborate scheme for
> public deception. The power of the government is real and it's there
> always. Finding clever ways to hide such power will not make it
> magically disappear.
Were you in the western city? You can sue them even from a hole in the
street which broke your car. In China you can't even speak about such a
little imperfection of your government, you assume that the government is
always perfect. We Europeans asume rather thet no government is perfect and
the government is permanently provisory --- it's a fundamental of our
system which we are proud of.
Jakub A. Krzewicki
contaminated talk.politics.tibet with the following letter:
> Why is your government so evil that it deserves to be sued in serving
> justice? Because it does not even try to speak for the people. It only
> speaks for the rich and powerful instead. That is why your western
> system creates such illusion that pretends the government has no power
> over the court when in fact the government always works with the court
> in deceiving the public. It's nothing but an elaborate scheme for
> public deception. The power of the government is real and it's there
> always. Finding clever ways to hide such power will not make it
> magically disappear.
Were you in the western city? You can sue them even from a hole in the
street which broke your car. In China you can't even speak about such a
little imperfection of your government, you assume that the government is
always perfect. We Europeans assume rather that no government is perfect and
the government is permanently provisory --- it's a fundamental of our
system which we are proud of.
--
Raymond
It's nothing but an illusion for an individual to sue the government.
The fact the government must be sued in court in order to make things
right proves the government never even intends to be right in the
first place. It shows the true evil face of the government in the west
which never really cares about the welfare of the people it rules
over.
In China, we hold the government responsible for the welfare of the
people not by the court of the law, but by the moral of the heart. The
government should not be forced to do things in serving and protecting
the people. The government should be voluntarily serving and
protecting the people as their moral duty and responsibility. Whenever
such responsibility is not fulfilled, the government is not to be sued
in court but to be forced to resign instead.
The court is the place to deal with criminals. When the government is
sued in court, it shows the government has become the same as
criminals. It must be a sick joke for the west to have criminals
running their government and still feel good about it.
Jakub A. Krzewicki
contaminated talk.politics.tibet with the following letter:
> The court is the place to deal with criminals. When the government is
> sued in court, it shows the government has become the same as
> criminals. It must be a sick joke for the west to have criminals
> running their government and still feel good about it.
In the west is something like the tradition of civil courts to solve the
controversies and disputes. It has probably no counterpart in the chinese
tradition. Civil dispute is not a trial and the lost side of the
controversy is not considered a criminal except the investigation of the
civil court decides otherwise, but it's always obliged to make compensation
for the excessive advantage in the disputed matter. If the court finds no
crime from the Criminal Code, but only an excessive advantage at the cost
of the adversary, the worst threat is the execution of the compensation by
the bailiff, not a criminal trial.
It's quite unusual for the citizens to dispute this way with anyone in
China, especially to dispute the government, but in Europe it is the
sacrosanct civil law, the base of our system.
You had the brief years of the Cultural Revolution in your country that
shocked your conservative culture disguised as a Communist one. Actually in
Europe (and before George WWIII Bush in America) we are used to the
permanent cultural and political revolution every four or five years during
each elections. This state of intentional impermanence lasts some
2 centuries with some brief intervals for the most cruel and dictatorial,
but generally short-lived regimes. "Verwirrung, Zweitracht, Unordnung,
Beamtennherrschaft und Realpolitik" is the core of all extant Western
systems including the original Marxist Communism. The "mandate of Heaven"
and "divine rule of the kings" era effectively fell in Europe beginning
from the 18th century, and its remainders were finely killed in action
during WW1 and consequentle buried by the June 28, 1919 Versailles Treaty.
Raymond
<ebr...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
>niedziela, 4 maja 2008 12:59. carbon entity 'Raymond' <ni...@nizuy.com>
>contaminated talk.politics.tibet with the following letter:
>
>> The court is the place to deal with criminals. When the government is
>> sued in court, it shows the government has become the same as
>> criminals. It must be a sick joke for the west to have criminals
>> running their government and still feel good about it.
>
>In the west is something like the tradition of civil courts to solve the
>controversies and disputes. It has probably no counterpart in the chinese
>tradition. Civil dispute is not a trial and the lost side of the
>controversy is not considered a criminal except the investigation of the
>civil court decides otherwise, but it's always obliged to make compensation
>for the excessive advantage in the disputed matter.
That's why you are at the fault again. When the government abuses its
power to do harm to its citizens, it is a crime for breaching the
public trust and robbing the people. It should never be any civil
dispute. It's serious crimes against its own citizens.
If the court finds no
>crime from the Criminal Code, but only an excessive advantage at the cost
>of the adversary, the worst threat is the execution of the compensation by
>the bailiff, not a criminal trial.
>
>It's quite unusual for the citizens to dispute this way with anyone in
>China, especially to dispute the government, but in Europe it is the
>sacrosanct civil law, the base of our system.
Very naive system if you ask me. Basically, it is you the citizen who
sues the government for abusing its power to harm your interest. If
the government is found guilty, it is you the citizen who pays the
bill of the lawsuit and the damage caused by the government with your
tax dollars. You may sue the government for doing you wrong, but you
must also pay the government for doing you wrong. And you say
hallelujah, praise the Lord! we have the best political system in the
world.
Are you really this stupid?
And can you be more stupid than this?
Jakub A. Krzewicki
contaminated talk.politics.tibet with the following letter:
> Very naive system if you ask me. Basically, it is you the citizen who
> sues the government for abusing its power to harm your interest. If
> the government is found guilty, it is you the citizen who pays the
> bill of the lawsuit and the damage caused by the government with your
> tax dollars. You may sue the government for doing you wrong, but you
> must also pay the government for doing you wrong. And you say
> hallelujah, praise the Lord! we have the best political system in the
> world.
>
> Are you really this stupid?
>
> And can you be more stupid than this?
You are gullible: there are some millions of another citizens who pool
together for the compensation for a proverbial hole in the bridge which
broke my car. Near everybody has a car in Europe, so this is a practical
meaning of "Egalité".
Raymond
<ebr...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
>niedziela, 4 maja 2008 14:06. carbon entity 'Raymond' <ni...@nizuy.com>
>contaminated talk.politics.tibet with the following letter:
>
>> Very naive system if you ask me. Basically, it is you the citizen who
>> sues the government for abusing its power to harm your interest. If
>> the government is found guilty, it is you the citizen who pays the
>> bill of the lawsuit and the damage caused by the government with your
>> tax dollars. You may sue the government for doing you wrong, but you
>> must also pay the government for doing you wrong. And you say
>> hallelujah, praise the Lord! we have the best political system in the
>> world.
>>
>> Are you really this stupid?
>>
>> And can you be more stupid than this?
>
>You are gullible: there are some millions of another citizens who pool
>together for the compensation for a proverbial hole in the bridge which
>broke my car. Near everybody has a car in Europe, so this is a practical
>meaning of "Egalit?.
I'm shocked that you are breaking the record of stupidity with each of
your passing posts. What have other citizens done you wrong that you
must force them to pay you money for something they are not really
responsible?
Jakub A. Krzewicki
contaminated talk.politics.tibet with the following letter:
> I'm shocked that you are breaking the record of stupidity with each of
> your passing posts. What have other citizens done you wrong that you
> must force them to pay you money for something they are not really
> responsible?
Do you use an insurance fund? Do you pay a civil responsibility insurance?
The administration do not pay. They are an institution, a legal person as
another one. Ah, you probably are not familiar with the term of "legal
person" unes you have not a share of the company. All the present western
legal doctrines come from Jean-Jacques Rousseau. They tell about the state
as a social contract and see the state as a kind of a contract which
brought into being a big company which all the citizens have a
theoretically equal share and consequently responsibilities. Even Communism
is only a modification of these doctrines which realized that nor share nor
responsibilities are practiced to be equal and it promises the equality in
the future.
If you even know a term "legal person" you are probably closer for the
meaning of this terms from Roman or Medieval times when the superstitious
myth of the mandate of Heaven was really considered as a reality. All the
European Revolutions were successful efforts of overthrowing not only the
actual mandate of Heaven of the extant monarchs but even the very i d e a
of the mandate of Heaven by the idea of social contract.
Raymond
<ebr...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
>niedziela, 4 maja 2008 14:48. carbon entity 'Raymond' <ni...@nizuy.com>
>contaminated talk.politics.tibet with the following letter:
>
>> I'm shocked that you are breaking the record of stupidity with each of
>> your passing posts. What have other citizens done you wrong that you
>> must force them to pay you money for something they are not really
>> responsible?
>
>Do you use an insurance fund?
If you have nothing better to say, I think I will pass. Does stupidity
have no end for you?
snip
Jim Walsh
(in article <t52r14l7ha54jufkj...@4ax.com>):
>
> Why is your government so evil that it deserves to be sued in serving
justice?
All government are composed of people and all people make mistakes. Having
peaceful ways to correct mistakes (e.g., litigation) is appropriate.
Too bad about the Chinese and their inability to correct their governments
mistakes.
Jim Walsh
(in article <t52r14l7ha54jufkj...@4ax.com>):
> hat is why your western system creates such illusion that pretends the
> government has no power over the court when in fact the government always
> works with the court in deceiving the public.
Government lose in court quite regularly. I beat the State of Washington lots
of times on behalf of individual clients.
Jim Walsh
(in article <fvk2eh$he2$3...@news.onet.pl>):
> We Europeans asume rather that no government is perfect and the government is
> permanently provisory --- it's a fundamental of our system which we are proud
> of.
Well said.
Jim Walsh
(in article <oe4r141ncpbb3bha8...@4ax.com>):
>
> In China, we hold the government responsible for the welfare of the people
> not by the court of the law, but by the moral of the heart.
In other words, the people of China have no mechanism by which to hold the
government responsible for its misdeeds.
bmo...@nyx.net
> On Sun, 04 May 2008 15:27:29 +0200, "Jakub A. Krzewicki"
>
> >niedziela, 4 maja 2008 14:48. carbon entity 'Raymond' <ni...@nizuy.com>
> >contaminated talk.politics.tibet with the following letter:
>
> >> I'm shocked that you are breaking the record of stupidity with each of
> >> your passing posts. What have other citizens done you wrong that you
> >> must force them to pay you money for something they are not really
> >> responsible?
>
> >Do you use an insurance fund?
>
> If you have nothing better to say, I think I will pass.
Not too good a response, Ray. He makes a very valid point. Do you not
get his point?
> Does stupidity
> have no end for you?
> snip
Ray, snipping responses that prove that you are silly is much like
sticking your head in the sand and thinking that people can't see you.
We can see you, Ray. You are childish, foul-mouthed and basically
without a leg to stand on.