Japanese boat crashes into US Navy destroyer in Pacific Fleet’s 5th collision this year

[jhungary]

Why is my definition wrong? Mine is from Duke.

https://sites.duke.edu/wlsa/files/2012/06/Besking-2013.pdf





Not following procedures is not the sole factor in negligence, but it is A MAJOR FACTOR in negligence. It is just common sense, there is a preset step of procedures to ensure safety and if you do not those steps in ensuring safety, aren't you negligent? Explain to me how is it not negligent when you don't follow safety procedures? If you are in a nuclear power plant like on an aircraft carrier, there are shutdown procedures for the turbines, aren't you supposed to follow those shutdown procedures to ensure safety? Aren't they negligent in their duties if they fail to follow those procedures? Do you understand what you are even talking or you are just moving you mouth without thinking?

I didn't say the definition is wrong, I said YOUR INTERPRETATION is wrong.

Again, Not following procedure is NOT a major factor in negligence, doing stuff that does not precede with duty of care is the core of negligence. Which is the term Reckless.

again, using my analogy, you can trace every accident to a sort of reason behind as to not follow proper procedure, because if everything following procedure, then there will not be an accident, but why not every accident is not a case of negligence? Or there accident can exist without breaking any rules?

DID THEY FOLLOW RULES AND PROCEDURES IN THE FIRST PLACE genius? No right? As I mentioned, if you follow rules and procedures and an accident happens, then it is an valid accident. How many times do I need to explain? Are you even listening and using some brain to understand or you just like to argue? I mean this is common sense, you don't have to type an essay to understand this SIMPLE concept.

Because your definition of "Negligence" is still wrong stupid.

Negligence is an act or lack thereof resulting a breach of normal duty of care, say for example, if you skip a procedure (ie NOT FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE) but you have given enough duty of care to other as to doing all you can to avoid accident to happen, that person cannot be of negligence

In this case, let's use the skipper of Fitzgerald as an example. He does not follow procedure (Where he went to sleep at his quarter during the collision), but is he negligent? The answer is no. Because he did not put the ship at harms way when he went to sleep, he have assigned a crew on the pilot house and have assigned proper look out. Whaever happened to the look out and the crew would have been judge separately.

As I said, if Rules and Procedure were all followed then there will not be any accident, however, not all accident were caused by negligent, that alone should have told you your definition of Negligent is wrong.

I cannot be responsible for your intelligence level.

What are you even blurting about? This is a very simple question, it is whether the US NAVY was AT FAULT and CAUSED an INCIDENT for the USS Fitz/USS Mccain case. Can you understand this simple sentence? Am I blaming the navy for eternally for ALL KNOWN INCIDENTS AND ACCIDENT KNOWN TO MANKIND genius? Are you sane? Your arguments and ideas are incoherent and you keep on shifting the goal post instead of concentrating on the initial debate. Are you Indian by any chance? Normally Indians would go crazy and haywire and start talking incoherently when they cannot provide reasonable responses to a debate.

For started, how's it's McCain fault when they were hit by the Alnic in the starboard? Answer me that?

You know nothing at all 5 incidents, and yet you open your mouth like you do.

It doesn't take a genius to see your argument is flaw, genius.

It doesn't matter if ACX is at fault too, it does not render the US NAVY FAULTLESS and CAUSED the crash too. How many times do you need me to repeat this. Why are you repeating the same question over and over again. If one party is proven at fault and cause and incident, the other party can also be at fault and cause the accident, both party can be at fault and cause the accident but this does not mean the first party is free of any fault. UNDERSTAND my ignorant friend?

And you have comprehension problem. Where in my whole post I claim US Navy is Faultless to begin with?

I said who is to blame on this incident, you are too dumb to realise this is a different question, you cannot yank at me on that, if you want to have someone to yank to, yank yourself as you are too dumb to understand the two argument is different

Both side can be at fault, but there are either 1 or none to blame and responsible for the incident. You cannot blame both side to be responsible for the accident. Because you can only have 1 accuser and 1 defendant and no defendant at all, you cannot have 2 defendant at an civil responsibility level.

God, you are really stupid.

READ YOUR POST AGAIN, you are incoherent, one point you admit the US NAVY is at fault, the next you are saying they are not. So WHICH IS WHICH NOW? GOSH, you are talking so much you don't even remember what you said now genius?

Because you still confuse between Fault and Responsibility, dumbass.

At fault does not mean they are responsible for the accident, on the other hand, being not responsible does not mean you are not at fault, is it REALLY this hard to understand?

I can talk to a 6 years old and he still understand this concept, are you saying you are stupider than a 6 year old?

You are copy pasting one big tome of legal terms and yet you are not explaining one simple question I asked, HOW DOES BEING AT FAULT MEANT YOU DID NOT CAUSED THE CRASH? Until now you are not answering it. You are only writing gibberish and copy pasting stuff and not answering anything. This makes you look ignorant and desperate.

I cannot be hold responsible if you are too dumb to understand law, sorry.

You are TELLING me, you are not justifying your statement. I can say you are gay but I have to explain why you are gay right? I have to proof you are gay. Understand? Typing an essay without answering anything is plain stupid.

And yes I am telling you whoever is at fault caused the incident. If both are at fault, then both caused the incident. Care to explain to me why am I wrong?

Again, you are too dumb to understand what I said, that's your problem.

You can say both side "Contributed" to the incident, but you cannot say both side caused the accident.

Yes Mr. Lawyer's husband, by your logic we don't need maritime laws, we can just apply road regulations right?

READ THIS GENIUS
https://www.houstoninjurylawyer.com/fault-maritime-collision/



WHO IS AT FAULT IN A MARITIME COLLISION?

Do you understand the above statement genius? Auto collision and Ship collision are different in nature. When you are on a road, the path is set, you are on your side of the road and I am on my side. In the sea, do you see dividers and red lights, genius? NO RIGHT. So how the heck can they be the same. COMMON SENSE, PLEASE USE SOME COMMON SENSE. Geesh, how many times do I have to prove you wrong, first you said military are not supposed to be professional, then you said they don't have to follow laws and regulations, then now you can't even differentiate maritime collisions and road collisions? I am beginning to doubt your IQ now.

The statement above also makes it clear that the party who is at fault is the party not following navigation rules, as per the report, the US NAVY DID NOT follow those rules. So they were definitely at fault and caused the accident, the unknown now is whether the ACX CRYSTAL is also culpable of causing the incident. Understand. Being partially responsible for a crash does not mean you are not causing a crash. Please get this simple concept into your thick skull.

I am talking about the definition of negligence and degree of culpability genius, of course there are two sets of rules between road rules and naval rules. Those are two different medium.

But the definition of negligence and the degree of culpability is the same, that is why I can explain the degree of negligence using a bicycle accident to a ships collision.

So you mean every time a destroyer needs to move around with sailors, ammunition and food, they need to hire a merchant navy to transport it form point A to point B? So the sailors who are meant to operate the ships and the food, missiles and equipment on that destroyers first need to be dismantled, get down and uploaded on to a merchant navy to be transported? If those equipment and sailors onboard are removed, how are there gonna operate that ship?Are you dumb or something? . Merchant Navy is supposed to supplement the supplies and transportation for those ships understand? When you fight wars, you freaking need to move that ship from point A to point B. While moving the ship from point A to point B with sailors and equipment, you are navigating the ship and transporting them from point A to point B. So the Navy is not just about fighting wars, it is about navigating and operating a naval asset properly so that they can FIGHT wars.

Dude, do you even understand what is "Transportation" and what is "Warfighting"?

I carry 300 rounds of ammunition to war as an infantry, does that mean I have to make the same precaution as dangerous good as if I am transporting ammunition on a ammo truck? Even if I go where the ammo truck goes? So First, I cannot be smoking when I am In war then, because I am carrying 300 rounds of ammunition and a few grenade.

Ships carry what she carry, and yes, if you want to carry more of those material, you need a dedicated vessel for it, it is true in US Navy, it is the same in Chinese Navy, that ship is called "Replenishment Vessel"

You are really stupid to try to explain away your point.

Transport goods from A to B for the sole purpose for transportation is different than individual going from A to B for a purpose, and yes, a SHIP IS AN INDIVIDUAL because we count the ship as one

.
Your IQ is really low my friend, if you are unprofessional even after so much professional training, then you cause accidents, and then you get FIRED like those Navy Commanders.


See your contradiction here? First you are telling me the Navy is not meant to be professional, then now you are telling me they are a PROFESSIONAL FIGHTING FORCE. Who says they are not supposed to be a professional fighting force? I had been saying it since the beginning right? That's why I was questioning the professionalism of those sailors. Being a professional fighting force, requires you to navigate and bring those sailors on that god damn destroyer from point A to point B safely to FIGHT WARS.

That's because you have taken my point out of context, genius.

I said Navy need not to be profession to transport stuff from A to B, but they are to be a professional fighting force, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERNET BETWEEN TRANSPORT AND WARFIGHTING? Those are of different category, those undergoes different training. What you train in warfighting is not going to be useful for normal A to B operation, what you train in transporting will not be useful for your normal warfighting operation.

That is the point, call US Navy unprofessional if they fire a missile to China by mistake. Call them unprofessional because they crashed going from A to B? LOL, that is just dumb, were the US navy solely train for going from A to B? See how stupid is your argument?

How many times I have to repeat this? ACX CRYSTAL being at fault or any subset of it being at fault does not render the US NAVY FAUTLESS and it also does not mean the US NAVY did not caused the accident. At most it proves BOTH are at fault and cause the accident.

And how many time I have to tell you fault and responsibility is a separate issue?

No, being professional in carrying out duties according to regulations meant to ensure safety is a prerequisite of a safety oriented force. Explain to me how being professional in following safety rules means you are unsafe? They go hand in hand genius. Who says safely operated ships won't crash? The debate here is about a ship not operated professionally crashing. If Paul Walker with a proper driving license still crash, then it is an accident. If he was trained to follow the rules and speed limit and also not take alcohol, and yet he crash, it is an accident. If Paul drove and did not follow those rules, then he is at fault, no matter how well he was trained in driving school. UNDERSTAND?

Dumbass.

You are talking about duties and regulation regarding the sea transition.

How does that translate to professionalism when you are not following. So, because I don't follow rules and I am unprofessional? You have discounted one thing, EVERYONE MAKE MISTAKE. Professional ARE NO EXCEPTION. Maybe you are tired, maybe you have other thing in your mind, every professional have one or twice make mistake leading to unsafe condition, does that mean that person ceased to be professional at that point because they made a mistake?

If they were found to be REPEATEDLY not following rules and procedure, then yeah, maybe then you can start saying this is unprofessional. Can you proof that rules are repeatedly broken with the USN, if not, how do you know it was unprofessional?

You are god damn funny and you totally misread my example.

By the way, Paul Walker did not drive when he crash and died, he was a passenger and his friend a professional driver is driving the Porches.

Stop going off topic and talking about your grand mother again.Please stick to the topic. Read above explanation.

Then stop going off topic and bring professionalism in this argument.

Read my statement carefully. The Navy ship was at fault as per the Naval Report, that's how I know they caused the accident. Whether they are liable for criminal prosecution depends on the court not me. But it still does not make them FAULTLESS and not cause the incident. The ACX CRYSTAL may also be at fault and cause the accident, but it also does not make the US NAVY FAULTLESS AND NOT CAUSE THE ACCIDENT. And how does being at fault not cause the accident. You are still not answering me till now.

Again, that's because you are obviously still too dumb to understand fault and responsibility is two separate issue.

Getting quite tired talking to you, you keep saying one thing, I don't know is it because you don't get my point because you are really not in a level to understand this or not getting them intentionally, but well, if we are going to be back and forth like this, then I don't have time for you and I am not going to keep posting the same thing and say you still not understand faults and responsibility is two different issue (I said this 6 times in this post already)

So I am going to do you a solid, I am not going to post here anymore, say whatever you want, but I just don't have time to go over and over and over and over and over and over again at the same thing.

​

[/QUOTE]

 

[Han Patriot]

I didn't say the definition is wrong, I said YOUR INTERPRETATION is wrong.

Go check your post again and read what you said. Do you see the word 'INTERPRETATION' there? You are a liar. You change your points whenever you got refuted and twist it as if you didn't say it in the first place.

This is what you said >

1.) Your definition of Negligent is wrong, the law definition is that

How does definition = interpretation. Do you need to learn basic English genius?

Again, Not following procedure is NOT a major factor in negligence, doing stuff that does not precede with duty of care is the core of negligence. Which is the term Reckless.

Who says it isn't? You? Are you a qualified lawyer? No right, so what makes you the final call for the meaning of negligence when I have proven to you without doubt that not following rules meant to maintain safety is negligence? And who says negligence only comprise of one element? Being reckless is also negligence, meaning he was supposed to be alert and of sound mind while operating the ship. Hell the crew could also be reckless and fail to follow rules. They might also be following rules but reckless, but the report clearly says they were not following rules and operational procedures, which by legal definition meant they were negligent in their duties. Are you still confused? I suggest you go back to school and learn how to debate intelligently and not write essays which does not address the question.

It's like saying I killed a man by stabbing and strangling, the person might strangle and stab at the same time but both action leads to death. You cannot say stabbing does not lead to death and only strangling leads to death.

Because your definition of "Negligence" is still wrong stupid.

Now you are saying my definition is wrong, previously you were saying my interpretation is wrong. Which is which now? Omg, you are having another schizo attack again?

Negligence is an act or lack thereof resulting a breach of normal duty of care, say for example, if you skip a procedure (ie NOT FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE) but you have given enough duty of care to other as to doing all you can to avoid accident to happen, that person cannot be of negligence

How have you given enough duty of care when you just skipped a procedure. So if one of the procedure to shut down the reactor is to close the steam valve, else the whole reactor blows up. Then by your logic he skips that step but he has shown 'care' and the reactor explodes and kills thousands of people, he is not negligent? hahahah, you need to have your intelligence level checked bro. It's a tee bit on the low end side.

In this case, let's use the skipper of Fitzgerald as an example. He does not follow procedure (Where he went to sleep at his quarter during the collision), but is he negligent? The answer is no. Because he did not put the ship at harms way when he went to sleep, he have assigned a crew on the pilot house and have assigned proper look out. Whaever happened to the look out and the crew would have been judge separately.

As I said, if Rules and Procedure were all followed then there will not be any accident, however, not all accident were caused by negligent, that alone should have told you your definition of Negligent is wrong.

I cannot be responsible for your intelligence level.

I suggest you read the report again and understand it was not just a matter of going to sleep and letting another crew take over. The crews who were operating at that time fail to follow procedures and maritime rules. The navy operates as a team, jut because one skipper might be faultless, it doesn't mean the Navy ship is faultless and did not cause and incident. Do you understand?

So if your mum was supposed to watch the pot, then she felt sleepy and assign you to watch the fire, but you put a gas tank next to the fire, the kitchen explodes. Who is at fault now? The Navy is not ONE person, the Navy is responsible for all her crew. When you go to court, the suit is against the Navy and the GOTUS, understand genius?

For started, how's it's McCain fault when they were hit by the Alnic in the starboard? Answer me that?

You know nothing at all 5 incidents, and yet you open your mouth like you do.

It doesn't take a genius to see your argument is flaw, genius.

Care to explain to me why there weren't at fault. Can you state your stand properly, are they or are they not at fault. One point you tell me they are, the next they are faultless. Bro, you cannot have split personality. Be firm on your point.

* The bridge crew – including the commander – didn’t know how the helm worked on the USS McCain.

Much of the track leading up to the Singapore Traffic Separation Scheme was significantly congested and dictated a higher state of readiness. Had this occurred, maximum plant reliability could have been set with a Master Helmsman and a qualified Engineering Lee Helm on watch.

If the CO had set Sea and Anchor Detail adequately in advance of entering the Singapore Strait Traffic Separation Scheme, then it is unlikely that a collision would have occurred. The plan for setting the Sea and Anchor Detail was a failure in risk management, as it required watch turnover of all key watch stations within a significantly congested TSS and only 30 minutes prior to the Pilot pickup.

If JOHN S MCCAIN had sounded at five short blasts or made Bridge-to-Bridge VHF hails or notifications in a timely manner, then it is possible that a collision might not have occurred.

The Commanding Officer decided not to station the Sea and Anchor detail when appropriate, despite recommendations from the Navigator, Operations Officer and Executive Officer.

Senior officers and bridge watchstanders did not question the Helm’s report of a loss of steering nor pursue the issue for resolution.

The collisions that killed 17 sailors this summer were “preventable” lapses in basic seamanship, the Chief of Naval Operations admitted today.

And you have comprehension problem. Where in my whole post I claim US Navy is Faultless to begin with?

I said who is to blame on this incident, you are too dumb to realise this is a different question, you cannot yank at me on that, if you want to have someone to yank to, yank yourself as you are too dumb to understand the two argument is different

Both side can be at fault, but there are either 1 or none to blame and responsible for the incident. You cannot blame both side to be responsible for the accident. Because you can only have 1 accuser and 1 defendant and no defendant at all, you cannot have 2 defendant at an civil responsibility level.

God, you are really stupid.

This is what you said a moment ago. You forgot what you posted or you are having split personality again?

For started, how's it's McCain fault when they were hit by the Alnic in the starboard? Answer me that?

So please state your stand are they at fault or are they not? Blaming someone and finding someone at fault is the same thing, you trying to play semantics now. I blame you for breaking the vase, I find you at fault for breaking the vase, what is the difference in meaning? You need me to tutor you in basic English?

You were the one who told everybody in the first place that BOTH CAN BE AT FAULT AND CAUSE THE ACCIDENT. Remember? Now you are telling me only ONE can be at fault and cause the incident? Having memory loss again sir? So which is which now? If that was the case, it makes it even simpler, since one party is already proven at fault.

Because you still confuse between Fault and Responsibility, dumbass.

At fault does not mean they are responsible for the accident, on the other hand, being not responsible does not mean you are not at fault, is it REALLY this hard to understand?

I can talk to a 6 years old and he still understand this concept, are you saying you are stupider than a 6 year old?

You are STATING, you are not explaining nor proving why being AT FAULT MEANT THEY DIDN'T CAUSE the accident/incident. Until now you are still not able to, kinda pathetic when you go in circles not proving nor explaining anything, hoping to drown the question out.

Stop avoiding the QUESTION. I had been asking this question for the last few days, WHY BEING AT FAULT MEANT THEY DIDN'T CAUSE the incident? Answer me damn it.

Dude, do you even understand what is "Transportation" and what is "Warfighting"?

So what is war fighting? Doesn't war fighting require you to navigate a ship, maintain a ship, operate the ship, and reach the point of conflict to launch missiles and attack the enemy? You mean your ship just shoot missiles? you mean your ship doesn't need to avoid other ships? No wonder they crash, the US has got geniuses like you around.

A replenishment ship's sole purpose is to transport and replenish other ships not to fight wars. They are meant to supplement those ships when they run out of supplies. A destroyer is meant to navigate and transport the crew and ship safely to reach the point of conflict to fight wars. This is a complex fighting machine which includes, maintenance, operations and navigation. You require professionally trained naval crews to do all this job. Knock, knock, is your brain still in your head? Please get this into your head, I have been repeating this many many times.

I carry 300 rounds of ammunition to war as an infantry, does that mean I have to make the same precaution as dangerous good as if I am transporting ammunition on a ammo truck? Even if I go where the ammo truck goes? So First, I cannot be smoking when I am In war then, because I am carrying 300 rounds of ammunition and a few grenade.

Do you need me to teach you English? Do you know the difference between 'carry' and 'transport'? A ship can carry goods, but a human cannot transport goods by carrying it because transporting requires the help of a machine or vehicle. Understand? So how does your analogy of a troop carrying ammo on his shoulders got to do with a thousand ton ship transporting man, machine and fuel? You pump fuel into your anus to carry it?

Do you have 400 deg steam turbine exhaust coming out of your other orifices?. Gosh, you are one crazy person.

transport
verb
tranˈspɔːt,trɑːnˈspɔːt/

1. 1.
   take or carry (people or goods) from one place to another by means of a vehicle, aircraft, or ship.

carry
ˈkari/
verb

1. 1.
   support and move (someone or something) from one place to another.

Ships carry what she carry, and yes, if you want to carry more of those material, you need a dedicated vessel for it, it is true in US Navy, it is the same in Chinese Navy, that ship is called "Replenishment Vessel"

You are really stupid to try to explain away your point.

Transport goods from A to B for the sole purpose for transportation is different than individual going from A to B for a purpose, and yes, a SHIP IS AN INDIVIDUAL because we count the ship as one

Are you on drugs or something? Who doesn't know replenishment ships, merchant navy are meant to supplement a naval fleet, you are just repeating what I said. What has it got to do with a naval ship not having to transport her crew and fighting equipment to the battle front? A ship can 'go' to a place by transporting herself and her crew to that place. What is the difference? Going is an action of moving, but it is only telling people an action of motion, it is not telling what is going with it. By transporting, you are carrying a crew, equipment, ammunition with you. Are you saying the ship is moving by itself without a crew? Without missiles? Since she is an individual?

That's because you have taken my point out of context, genius.

I said Navy need not to be profession to transport stuff from A to B, but they are to be a professional fighting force, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERNET BETWEEN TRANSPORT AND WARFIGHTING? Those are of different category, those undergoes different training. What you train in warfighting is not going to be useful for normal A to B operation, what you train in transporting will not be useful for your normal warfighting operation.

I think you are not understanding the meaning of fighting a war. You are asking me, telling me transporting and war fighting is different, I am telling you transporting and navigating troops safely is a part of fighting a war. It is a subset. Maintenance, logistics, intelligence, are all subset of war fighting.

Let me explain it a infantile manner, so you may understand. Apple cider and apples are different, but for you to have apple cider, you need to ferment apple juice. Do you understand? A part of war fighting requires the navy to navigate, and transport her crew and equipment safely to the battle front before even firing a single missile. Do you understand?

That is the point, call US Navy unprofessional if they fire a missile to China by mistake. Call them unprofessional because they crashed going from A to B? LOL, that is just dumb, were the US navy solely train for going from A to B? See how stupid is your argument?

You are still ignorant, going to point A to B was never their sole purpose, their purpose is going from point A to B to attack an adversary. How thick is your skull btw, knowledge can't seem to penetrate through.

And how many time I have to tell you fault and responsibility is a separate issue?

You had been TELLING me many many many times, you are not explaining nor proving to me how a fault does not equate responsibility in crashing a ship. I can tell you that you are STUPID but what's the point, I have to prove and explain to you why you are stupid right? I don't think I need to now.

Dumbass.
You are talking about duties and regulation regarding the sea transition.

How does that translate to professionalism when you are not following. So, because I don't follow rules and I am unprofessional? You have discounted one thing, EVERYONE MAKE MISTAKE. Professional ARE NO EXCEPTION. Maybe you are tired, maybe you have other thing in your mind, every professional have one or twice make mistake leading to unsafe condition, does that mean that person ceased to be professional at that point because they made a mistake?

unprofessional
ʌnprəˈfɛʃ(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective

1. below or contrary to the standards expected in a particular profession.

Yes, by not following rules and procedures, you are being unprofessional. You make mistakes when you are following rules and procedures and is of sound mind but due to unforeseen and uncontrolled circumstances, you do a mistake. Being unprofessional is just part of being negligent, when you do not show care meaning you are not of sound mind, reckless or consciousness, you are not meant to operate a ship, you should excuse yourself and ask for assistance. By being unprofessional, reckless and careless, you become negligent. So can you say, opppps, my mistake, I just killed 17 sailors? No you can't, there are repercussions, and that's why the commander was punished.

If they were found to be REPEATEDLY not following rules and procedure, then yeah, maybe then you can start saying this is unprofessional. Can you proof that rules are repeatedly broken with the USN, if not, how do you know it was unprofessional?

You are god damn funny and you totally misread my example.

By the way, Paul Walker did not drive when he crash and died, he was a passenger and his friend a professional driver is driving the Porches.

Being repeatedly nonconforming to standards, meant you are repeatedly unprofessional. You only need to be unprofessional and reckless for one moment and a nuclear reactor can explode and a ship could crash. So? I don't have to proof they repeatedly broke rules, they only need to break it once to cause and incident. You have a pretty funny logic. You are saying as if it's ok to repeatedly beat a kid up as long as he is fine, but what if you beat a kid up and he dies the first time?

Then stop going off topic and bring professionalism in this argument.

Again, that's because you are obviously still too dumb to understand fault and responsibility is two separate issue.

Getting quite tired talking to you, you keep saying one thing, I don't know is it because you don't get my point because you are really not in a level to understand this or not getting them intentionally, but well, if we are going to be back and forth like this, then I don't have time for you and I am not going to keep posting the same thing and say you still not understand faults and responsibility is two different issue (I said this 6 times in this post already)

So I am going to do you a solid, I am not going to post here anymore, say whatever you want, but I just don't have time to go over and over and over and over and over and over again at the same thing.

My dear Chinese comrades, this is how you debate with a novelist. You dissect their arguments into simple pieces and debate on the key points until they cannot answer. 2:0

​

 

[jhungary]

My dear Chinese comrades, this is how you debate with a novelist. You dissect their arguments into simple pieces and debate on the key points until they cannot answer. 2:0

Well, I quit this debate because all my post containing tiny bit of insult was deleted pro-haste by the Moderator (I think 4 of my post was gone), and most insulting post levy on mine are still stand.

And if going round and round and round and round throwing insult is the key to win your so called "Argument" then well, you can have the win, because I have no intention to get to that point.

Otherwise I could have just as easy to copy and paste the same point over and over and over and over and over again and counter your point every other post. I mean how hard to copy and paste to be honest?

And well, if you want you and your fellow Chinese brother to be seen as a bunch of cow, that's your business.