CST's Wife Falling into 154th's Trap!

[Chau Ve Nist]

Dear Chau

No need at least I can atest that in terms of citations for course work and reading , academic journals and what were serious journals with quality writings were very clear cut. Foreign Affairs and Journal of Democracy though not having a formal peer review process are considered leading journals in their fields due to their quality of writings and contributors. They are in a sense just as "good" . but very different from stuff like " index of censorship. " My money I believe was well utilized every time I look at your conniving and weasel arguments.


Locke

LOL. I am prepared to bet everything that you didn't even know what an academic journal is until I pointed it out to you just as you didn't know that a magazine which calls itself a magazine can be classified and be called a journal.

In any case, there is no point arguing with me. Here again is the classification of "Index on censorship" as a Journal by your alma mater, LSE.

https://catalogue.lse.ac.uk/Search/Home?lookfor=Index on censorship&submit=Find​

Index on censorship
Classmark: PN4701
Located: Main Collection - Periodical
Available
Journal ​

Get your "conniving and weasel" alma mater to "correct" the "wrong" journal classification if you feel so strongly about this trivial stuff.

Life goes on for everyone and me and the world will still move on even if you want to call it a magazine, porno magazine, comic, rag, non-journal, etc.

LOL. You are a one man world unto yourself, aren't you?

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

Ya, right. Every forumer here can tell if you are buttering me up. You are just trying to reduce the number of people throwing rocks at you. Poor chap!

You must be pretty dumb to not be able to see through and understand sarcasm and to actually think I am buttering you up even though I call you "daft", "donkey", "empty vessel" etc point blank, i.e. unless you actually believe these are complimentary terms.

BTW, just in case you really think you are up for some Nobel Peace Prize, I was simply being sarcastic. Don't take it literally.

Gee, I never had to explain my sarcasms before.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Chau

No need to correct my alma, I am more than indebted to them for the quality of education and lessons provided to at least have a discourse with intellectual Shamen's like you.

Just as a side, The economist is listed as a journal to :_)) But as much as I love the economist I would not consider it a journal as "academically heavy".


Locke

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Chau

Rubbish, I would like to direct readers to the deceptions and half truths which you have spewed , weaseled , connived , mis interpretered and mis directed. No need to educate me.my money has been well spent in developing the depth and thought processes to see through intellectual houdinis like you, full of spins and half truths.

1. You deliberately misquote and mis direct any public events to suit your needs. The joint action of thousands of individuals taken as a collective whole taking on a different meaning from the action of ten or even five is a position I stand by.


2. Sugars in these drinks will convert to glucose, but the reason glucose is so valued by Doctors for force feeding and for liquid feedings, is the fact that glucose is directly consumed by cells as a form of nutrition. i.e fuel for the cells in its purest forms. Whereas the sugars in drinks are not pure glucose but contain other forms of sugar.


3. Really in the Tianamen case you cited a minor act, I gave you verse page and chapter directing you to the WHOLE PLAY. You can selectively weasel and quote a line or two but U have ignored the whole play. Can the actions of the minor people you
quoted be taken out of the Context of the actions of the stated People willing to die at Tainanmen as I have cited ?



4. Courage and degree of commitment to a cause is of course subjective but when we compare him to major hunger strikes with comitment and intent, Glucose Chee has not demonstrated neither accept a hunger for self serving publicity, a PR Publicity Slut but live by publicity die by public judgement. He might be forgiven if he had actually collapsed but all he has proven thus far is an intent to garner the publicity without playing the price




Locke

 

[kingrant]

Ya right. Me too- I never had to explain sarcasm too. You are so predictable, I can pull yr strings! Haha...real deadbeat!

You must be pretty dumb to not be able to see through and understand sarcasm and to actually think I am buttering you up even though I call you "daft", "donkey", "empty vessel" etc point blank, i.e. unless you actually believe these are complimentary terms.

BTW, just in case you really think you are up for some Nobel Peace Prize, I was simply being sarcastic. Don't take it literally.

Gee, I never had to explain my sarcasms before.

 

[Perspective]

For him, just because it involves one Chee Soon Juan, it is "cheating".

Ironically, that thought applies most to the stalwarts down to the last member of the VERY party you support.

 

[Perspective]

Honestly, do you think he should die to satisfy your criteria of protest? When you don't even agree with the issue in protest anyway.

A person who agreed passionately with the issue in protest have moral grounds to ask, why didn't Dr. Chee go all the way?

You have none. You disagreed with the issue. What happened to him or his protest is none of your business, unless he succeeded, which he didn't.

You really think he should starve himself suicidically to earn your approval? I shudder.

In another thread, you mentioned you disagreed with SDP's modus operandi vis a vis your party, although the issues are the same. I don't think Locke is any different. He's just disagreeing.

FYI Gandhi was a lot, and I can say alot closer to death when he did the hunger strike, than CSJ.

 

[elephanto]

wow ! almost all the SBF Titans appear oredy : perspective, kingrant, ramseth, lockeliberal ... except sneering tree, scroobal & porfirio rubirosa !
CLASH OF THE SBF TITANS !

 

[Ramseth]

In another thread, you mentioned you disagreed with SDP's modus operandi vis a vis your party, although the issues are the same. I don't think Locke is any different. He's just disagreeing.

I believe that I'm being consistent. I may disagree with their modus operandi but I don't question their level of validity in doing it, unless they harm anyone along the way. They borne the consequences, and everyone involved are willing parties, no innocent collateral damages.

Locke is an advocate and practitioner of the idea of each oppose and act according to each own level of comfort or willingness. But in this case he's not disagreeing with hunger strike; he's picking herring bones.

 

[kingrant]

It's time someone here gets himself a decent re-education to learn how to be intellectually honest, and to differentiate between verbosity and veracity, and that the level of abusive tone in an argument is inversely proportional to truth and logic.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

Dont waste your time with Locke. He is one of two forumners here that will argue with hiself for the sake of arguing, even twisting and turning his own words for the sake of continuing an argument.

Of course, the other forumner that shares a similar trait is Locke himsef.

 

[Perspective]

I believe that I'm being consistent. I may disagree with their modus operandi but I don't question their level of validity in doing it, unless they harm anyone along the way. They borne the consequences, and everyone involved are willing parties, no innocent collateral damages.

Locke is an advocate and practitioner of the idea of each oppose and act according to each own level of comfort or willingness. But in this case he's not disagreeing with hunger strike; he's picking herring bones.

What you're saying here is quite subjective. On what is validity, what is picking on bones and what is not.

Anyway to digress, it's interesting to note that two of the only few handful of identified Sammyboy forummers have moved up to become paramount party leaders. The first is Goh Meng Seng, who became Secretary-General of National Solidarity Party. The second is Jaslyn Go aka "Lamei", who became General Secretary of the United Singapore Democrats. There were also two rumours I heard - Ng E-Jay nearly became Secretary-General of the Reform Party and Chia Ti Lik was slated to replace CSJ as Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party if the latter retires.

If all 4 happened, I would have gone "wow". The stature of this forum will surely increase!

 

[Ramseth]

Anyway to digress, it's interesting to note that two of the only few handful of identified Sammyboy forummers have moved up to become paramount party leaders. The first is Goh Meng Seng, who became Secretary-General of National Solidarity Party. The second is Jaslyn Go aka "Lamei", who became General Secretary of the United Singapore Democrats. There were also two rumours I heard - Ng E-Jay nearly became Secretary-General of the Reform Party and Chia Ti Lik was slated to replace CSJ as Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party if the latter retires.

If all 4 happened, I would have gone "wow". The stature of this forum will surely increase!

Not counting CEC positions, Sammyboy (including Delphi times) has involved no less five candidates:

Md. Jufrie
Goh Meng Seng
Chia Ti Lik
Melvin Tan
Edmund Ng

Enough to form a GRC team.

 

[Perspective]

Not counting CEC positions, Sammyboy (including Delphi times) has involved no less five candidates:

Md. Jufrie
Goh Meng Seng
Chia Ti Lik
Melvin Tan
Edmund Ng

Enough to form a GRC team.

Interesting. But what I was pointing out is that we nearly had 4 secretary-generals of 4 different opposition parties from among the 4 most regular identified sammyboy forummers. If Alex Tan (utopiasg from 3in1kpt) took over Chiam in SPP years later, we would have 5.

Candidates, anyone can be. The chief party leader, not everyone can be.

 

[Sideswipe]

The most controversial opposition politician of the last 20 years, Mr Chee Soon Juan don't post here.
Is he just badly misunderstood or a Wu Jian Dao?

 

[Ramseth]

The most controversial opposition politician of the last 20 years, Mr Chee Soon Juan don't post here.
Is he just badly misunderstood or a Wu Jian Dao?

Oh yes he did. I almost forgot. Back in Delphi old Sammyboy, he posted for a week.

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

1. You deliberately misquote and mis direct any public events to suit your needs. The joint action of thousands of individuals taken as a collective whole taking on a different meaning from the action of ten or even five is a position I stand by.

There's no "misquoting" and no "misdirecting". I provided the sources and references so anyone is free to check the validity of what I posted.

I am not quite sure why you are continuing to argue. You continue to trip yourself up by prolonging the argument.

You tripped yourself up when you wanted to argue over the term "journals" and "magazine".

You tripped yourself up when you wanted to argue over the term "fast" and "hunger strike" when I put up the UN example.

And now you are tripping yourself up over this Tianamen example.

This is what you stated earlier on my one day UN led hunger strike example:

"Notice the UN FAO chief uses the words he "fasted". Simply put if 100,000 fast world wide for one day against world hunger, well conceivably you can present it as a united world hunger strike agains hunger.....................it would not be an abuse of the word" ​

You have already accepted, contrary to your earlier position, that the one day led UN hunger strike is indeed a hunger strike.

You have also accepted, again using you own reasoning, that since this UN example involves a "major" group of "thousands" like Tiananmen and not a "minor" individual of "1 or 10", it is indeed a hunger strike.

Since you accept the UN example as a "hunger strike", you have inadvertently - although you are still unwilling to admit it - accepted that those thousands UN led hunger strikers had zero intention of killing themselves.

You continue to argue that the intention to kill oneself is a requirement for a hunger strike to be judged "genuine" and not "fake". This is even when it is clearly evident that none of the participants in the UN led hunger strike were planning to kill themselves, not unless you are now going to claim that a one day hunger strike can lead to death.

Now, which part of your very own assertions and arguments did you not understand???

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

Dear Chau Rubbish, I would like to direct readers to the deceptions and half truths which you have spewed , weaseled , connived , mis interpretered and mis directed. No need to educate me.my money has been well spent in developing the depth and thought processes to see through intellectual houdinis like you, full of spins and half truths.

What in God's world are you blabbering about this time around?

BTW, nice thesaurus you have got there. Was it pinched from the LSE library?

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

Sugars in these drinks will convert to glucose, but the reason glucose is so valued by Doctors for force feeding and for liquid feedings, is the fact that glucose is directly consumed by cells as a form of nutrition. i.e fuel for the cells in its purest forms. Whereas the sugars in drinks are not pure glucose but contain other forms of sugar.

What has this got to do with my simple point that if you want to consider "glucose" as cheating, then you need to do so for the other liquids I cited since the body will break them down to glucose?

3. Really in the Tianamen case you cited a minor act, I gave you verse page and chapter directing you to the WHOLE PLAY. You can selectively weasel and quote a line or two but U have ignored the whole play. Can the actions of the minor people you quoted be taken out of the Context of the actions of the stated People willing to die at Tainanmen as I have cited ?

My above reply refers.

4. Courage and degree of commitment to a cause is of course subjective but when we compare him to major hunger strikes with comitment and intent, Glucose Chee has not demonstrated neither accept a hunger for self serving publicity, a PR Publicity Slut but live by publicity die by public judgement. He might be forgiven if he had actually collapsed but all he has proven thus far is an intent to garner the publicity without playing the price Locke

You are too obsessed with CSJ. Forget CSJ. This is simply about what a hunger strike is. After you determined what a hunger strike is, you are then free to decide whether CSJ's hunger strike was "genuine" or "fake".

Remember, AOS. Not SOA.

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

Just as a side, The economist is listed as a journal to :_)) But as much as I love the economist I would not consider it a journal as "academically heavy". Locke

I've already stated this:

"There are thousands of journals like "Index on Censorship" in the world that continue to be classified as journals even though they are not peer reviewed."

The economist is one of those "thousands".

What you consider is hardly what is considered by those in the know, including your own alma mater.