Obama demands halt to South China Sea island building

[Wolfwind]

First of all, your "case opened" and "case closed" phrases clearly don't mean anything, because I know you will continue to respond to me. So you can't even abide by your own rules that you make, which to me is actually hilarious given the topic of discussion and given that you were previously accused of acting like a self-entitled arbiter.

Case re-opened.

The court made a Judgment of jurisdiction for that case, meaning they examined both arguments and objections of Israel and Bulgaria before issuing the Judgment, and the Judgment was that they wont accept jurisdiction, agreeing with Bulgaria. You dont want to admit that the court has issued a Judgment in agreement with Bulgaria so you only say they “realised” they dont have jurisdiction.

The petty fussing over semantics is a blatant red herring. You're also starting to resort to straw man arguments (actually that was basically all your summary of this discourse you posted earlier). I think you might have missed it but here is the link again:

Realise | Define Realise at Dictionary.com

Importantly, Bulgaria is not a counter example. I can't be bothered to argue this issue with you any further because you don't even get it. I will post it one last time, but after that you are just going to have to agree to disagree. The court found / realised / brought to fruition / concluded (or whatever nitpicking concrete minded term you prefer) that they had no jurisdiction on it. If you wanted to show a counter example then that would include Bulgaria receiving a ruling it acted in accordance to self defence. It is inappropriate because it is not an analogue of the Albania case.

Case re-opened.
The Israel vs. Palestine case was not used by me as a counter-example to your paradigm. I mentioned that case to show that the court’s Judgment on jurisdiction can be biased or fair. In the Israel vs. Palestine case, the Israeli said it was unfair.

Palestine is not a threat to Western hegemony so you can't really use that as any sort of example for whatever you were trying to disprove.

Case re-opened.
Dont you see my point? That you yourself don’t mind bringing up the PHL-CN case and even tried to initiate a discussion on it with me. But when I raised the PHl-CN case to challenge your paradigm/speculations, you acussed me of being concreted minded and somehow I should not focus on this single “concrete” case.

Your point is actually wrong though. While I don't mind talking about it, you were being dramatic when confronted with rationale (rather than regurgitating), which was completely unnecessary. There are many paradigms that interact. I said you should not focus on a concrete case to understand an abstract model. That doesn't work. Your application was erroneous.

As for the legal consequences, like I said before, I will discuss the legal consequences once the court issued its final judgment.

But I'm asking you what we might expect. What do you think we might expect? Or you're unable to even come up with any possibilities of your own? You can't even think for yourself but must wait for the final judgement to be made for you to talk about it. Are you that much of a concrete mind?

That's why your approach is not even desirable for discourse. No thoughts, no concepts of your own, or anything. Just regurgitating copypastas and commentary on the final judgement. Any comments you make about the judgements aren't going to be very fascinating or inspiring.

This rambling just re-confirm what I said earlier. Still make claims that you cannot back up. You continue to claim that there are “many” legal cases but repetitively refuse to list them when I asked you for over 5-6 times. Now trying to introduce additional issue like “the Western media being biased against China” when this was not the topic discussed in tgis thread. Then you continue to go on the same rambling about me without addressing the content and challenge that I raised.

It's not about "backing up claims" (which is simplistic and concrete minded), but the rationale and how I arrived to form my postulations. I am continuously addressing the content but you are continuously confusing yourself; I have explained many times why its fruitless to apply linear reasoning on a nonlinear paradigm

Now trying to introduce additional issue like “the Western media being biased against China” when this was not the topic discussed in tgis thread.

It's clear you are getting confused. How many times do I have to repeat myself? What I have been posting is not just the basis of my rationale. You are operating under the assumption that what I have posted is finite; most systems are nonlinear in nature.

If you had this much time rambling on side topic, then why not use that time to address the main issue of this debate? For the longest, since the beginning, I have been asking you to:

- Analyse the data available for the PHL-CN case to validate/verify your claims/speculations about it. But you keep ignoring this until now.

I have not been ignoring it. You just have trouble understanding how what I've posted answers your question. Your reasoning skill is haywire since you're assuming components derived from linear information are going to fit into a paradigm that is nonlinear in nature.

- You then talk/bragged about your abstracted “larger paradigm”. I then challenge you to list the many “cases” you’ve claimed you have used to support your paradigm (you have only managed to mention one so far). And I have repetitively asked you to apply this paradigm onto the PHL-CN case to validate/verify your paradigm and speculations, which is the main issue of this “debate”. Yet you have continually refused to do this and just start rambling on irrelevant things, just as you are doing in your previous post.

No you just don't get it. I have been answering everything but you don't understand how what I've posted ties into the crux of the issue, due to your concrete mindset.

That says it all, you are just dodging the main issue of this “debate”.

Case closed.

No I haven't dodged anything, ever. It's just your failure to understand the content of what I posted. And the case is never going to be closed because you can't even stick by your own rules. You will keep "reopening" and "reclosing" the case like some crazy, controlling, self-entitled arbiter

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

I do not know specifically what William Hung is arguing about or hope to achieve.

Right now, This is what I am reading.

1. Specifically, Manila SEEKS A RULING that none of the insular features in the South China Sea – be it the Scarborough Shoal/Huangyan Dao in the Northern Sector of the Sea or the Spratly/Nansha Islands in the Southern Sector, is CAPABLE of generating an ENTITLEMENT to an exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

2. Fifteen specific submissions for redress are laid out and Manila has even gone so far as TO PAY Beijing’s share of the COSTS OF ARBITRATION to keep the wheels of justice moving swiftly. That 14 of 15 submissions were admitted (some with reservations) by the Tribunal in its jurisdiction-related award on October 29 should not be seen as a vindication however of the strength of Manila’s legal arguments. One significant victory and a few marginal rulings in its favor aside, Manila is likely to come up EMPTY-HANDED for the most part in the final award.

Most importantly, none of the ruling whether it favor Philippines or PRC is enforceable.

US in pursuing a gunboat policy or displaying its military forces by sending its guided missile destroyer USS Lassen into waters within 12 nautical miles of China’s isles in the South China Sea has achieved nothing but in fact play right into China's hand. Now China has the excuse of MILITARIZING these islets. Let not forget USA in showing its support for Philippines EEZ is neither a signatory of the treaty nor ratify one.

Like ex-Philippine President Fidel Ramos once says in passive scolding of USA Sec. of State then, Hilliary Clintons - Asians can handle its own affair but with the arrival of USA returnee BS Aquino, everything changed as he despatched his warship to dislodge Chinese fishermen from these islet or safety shelter. Now China is justified in doing the same.

IMO Aquino spend Filipino taxpayer money on behalf the other claimant states to achive an EMPTY POLITICAL victory in a one party Arbitration Court that is NOT ENFORCEABLE.

Now Manila have to pay TOP MONEY for Japanese products e.g. Japan Railway which she can barely afford unlike the BOT China transportation proposal cancelled after BS Aquino follies in SCS.

That is my two cent.

 

[William Hung]

Me mad? Now you're trying to put words in my mouth.
In the start, yes, I used to read what was in the discussion. But then I stop reading what you post. You wanna know why? I just read the first few lines and laugh in your face. Tell you what, BRO! this forum isn't for the likes like you. You are already beginning to sound like a dying puppy. Know what a puppy do when it's about to die? It whines! That's exactly what you're doing here.
You should just find a forum more subtle to your taste. Good luck with your whining.

P. S. - The amount of BS you wrote made me to stop reading and taking you seriously. My friendly advice to you is, stop making a joke of yourself anymore. The more you post the more you look stupid.

You clearly mad bro. Go take a chill pill and relax.

The petty fussing over semantics is a blatant red herring. You're also starting to resort to straw man arguments (actually that was basically all your summary of this discourse you posted earlier). I think you might have missed it but here is the link again:

Realise | Define Realise at Dictionary.com

Importantly, Bulgaria is not a counter example. I can't be bothered to argue this issue with you any further because you don't even get it. I will post it one last time, but after that you are just going to have to agree to disagree. The court found / realised / brought to fruition / concluded (or whatever nitpicking concrete minded term you prefer) that they had no jurisdiction on it. If you wanted to show a counter example then that would include Bulgaria receiving a ruling it acted in accordance to self defence. It is inappropriate because it is not an analogue of the Albania case.

lol just as I have said, you STILL want to avoid calling it a Judgment. The court issued a Judgment on jurisdiction agreeing with Bulgaria’s objections and rejecting Israel’s arguments. In other words, they issued a Judgment that wasn’t biased against Bulgaria, and this is counter to your paradigm. The case doesn’t need to be analogous to the UK vs. Albania case, it just need to be that the court didn’t make a biased Judgment against Bulgaria and that would be enough to be a counter example against your paradigm.

Your point is actually wrong though. While I don't mind talking about it, you were being dramatic when confronted with rationale (rather than regurgitating), which was completely unnecessary. There are many paradigms that interact. I said you should not focus on a concrete case to understand an abstract model. That doesn't work. Your application was erroneous.

And this is what I was talking about, you keep insisting not to focus on a concrete case because blah blah blah......but the issue is that you have originally made claims/speculations about a concrete case (PHL-CN case and court’s ulterior motive against China) and when I asked you to focus on that concrete case (ie. PHL-CN case), you keep avoiding it by giving various excuses or lecturing on being abstract, etc.

But I'm asking you what we might expect. What do you think we might expect? Or you're unable to even come up with any possibilities of your own? You can't even think for yourself but must wait for the final judgement to be made for you to talk about it. Are you that much of a concrete mind?

I can come up with possibilities for that, but I want you to validate/verify/back up your original claims and speculations by analysing the data for the PHL-CN case first, which you keep dodging.

It's not about "backing up claims" (which is simplistic and concrete minded), but the rationale and how I arrived to form my postulations. I am continuously addressing the content but you are just confusing yourself; I have explained many times why its fruitless to apply linear reasoning on a nonlinear paradigm

Yea you tried to show your rationale in forming your postulations, and if we look further back, they were postulations about the PHL-CN case, OK no problem so far. But I then told you that there are data available now for the PHL-CN case, so bring those data up and analyse it to verify your postulations, but you keep refused to do it.

I have not been ignoring it. You just have trouble understanding how what I've posted answers your question. Your reasoning skill is haywire since you're assuming components derived from linear information are going to fit into a paradigm that is nonlinear in nature.

No I haven't dodged anything, ever. It's just your failure to understand the content of what I posted. And the case is never going to be closed because you can't even stick by your own rules. You will keep "reopening" and "reclosing" the case like some crazy, controlling, self-entitled arbiter

You have been clearly avoiding and dodging when you got challenged to “back up” your claims. Even when we talked about your so-called “larger paradigms”, you claimed repetitively that there have been many past cases that support your paradigm so I challenged you, for maybe 5-6 times already (just read the last 2 pages again), to list those past cases, but you keep ignoring it.

And when I asked you to bring up the PHL-CN case (which was the main topic to begin with) and to analyse it to validate your claims/speculations about that case, you keep ignoring it or give rediculous excuses.

In fact lets look at your post #72 where you have done exactly that. You first made some claims/speculations about the PHL-CN case show I asked you to bring up the available data for that case to analyse and validate your claims:

Likewise with the PHL vs. CN arbitration case. You cried foul over their socalled biased ulterior motives but haven’t explained how their decisions are so. The Arbitration judges have already issued their jurisdictional rulings, so can you explain how those rulings are unfair and wrong? Can you list each rulings and explain how wrongful it is? Or are you going to ignore the contents of the rulings and can only try to tarnish the reputation if the judges instead?

Then you replied to that by saying:

If they are that interested in ICJ judges then they can research it themselves. It's a bit condescending to assume that other people are unable to do their own research. If you can't see the blatant biases in many, many cases of ICJ rulings then I think there is a problem with your ability to think independently. The point here is that the perspectives of events is always going to be different and a group of people agreeing with each other is just an appeal to argumentum ad populum.

Corfu Channel Incident (Albania ordered to pay for reparations)
Corfu Channel incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. UK sailed in such proximity to Albania's border and trespassed into Albanian territorial waters. Albania fired on the ships. In my view, they should have notified Albania or Greece beforehand that they were going to sail pass these areas which were already hazardous due to ongoing conflicts from the Greek civil war.
In fact, UK was allied to Greece so they could sail in Greek territorial waters without any problems, but they chose to sail in Albanian territorial waters.
(Greek Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. UK ships hit mines that Albania requested Yugoslavia to place. Knowing the volatility of the previous incident, UK should have sailed closely to Greek shores, but instead chose to sail close to Albania's shores to "test the waters". That's asking for trouble. I think UK cannot complain here because they deliberately sailed in Albania's territorial waters, knowing the hostile circumstances.

3. UK conducted a minesweeping operation in Albanian territorial waters. This was not authorised by the Albanian government. Well again, they shouldn't be in Albanian territorial waters anyway.

Despite this, Albania was ordered by the ICJ to pay UK £844,000, which is equivalent to £26.6 million (or $40.1 million) in 2015.

Source: Obama demands halt to South China Sea island building | Page 5

See how you are clearly avoiding and refusing to analyse those PHL vs. CN data to verify your claims/speculations on that case. And not only did you give some ridiculous excuses (e.g. its condescending to ask that, readers can research it themselves ) but you went ahead in that post and analysed the data for the UK vs. Albania case to try to justify your speculations for the PHL-CN case. Why not just analyse the data for the PHL-CN directly to verify your PHL-CN speculations? If you had said you dont have time to analyse the PHL-CN data, then I might have believed you, but you put in so much time to analyse the UK-Albania data and trying to “abstract” from it. You have clearly been dodging my challenge to you to analyse the PHL-CN data to verify your speculations, because you probably can’t.

Everything is still there and clear to see.

At this moment, your rhetorics is basically to just keep denying, even if I point to the exact post as evidence. Now you have the audacity to say that you “have not dodged anything, ever”. What a funny guy.

 

[Wolfwind]

Oh? So we stopped the "case opened" and "case closed" thing. Based on intuition, I KNEW you'd respond like some crazy, controlling, self entitled arbiter.

lol just as I have said, you STILL want to avoid calling it a Judgment.

Arguing over petty semantics red herring. And no you're not even thinking it through properly. No matter what petty nitpicking word you want to use, it was applied completely inappropriately because you're thought process is haywire; it's not an analogue, it's not a counter example, that's the bottomline. I thought we already established this.

And this is what I was talking about, you keep insisting not to focus on a concrete case because blah blah blah

You didn't even understand what I posted, so you're saying I'm avoiding it. But really your mind is avoiding it because it doesn't allow you to abstract information.

Yea you tried to show your rationale in forming your postulations, and if we look further back, they were postulations about the PHL-CN case, OK no problem so far. But I then told you that there are data available now for the PHL-CN case, so bring those data up and analyse it to verify your postulations, but you keep refused to do it.

That is your own idea. I am not going to steal your idea and claim it as my own. If you want to do that then go ahead and do it yourself.

You have been clearly avoiding and dodging when you got challenged to “back up” your claims. Even when we talked about your so-called “larger paradigms”, you claimed repetitively that there have been many past cases that support your paradigm so I challenged you, for maybe 5-6 times already (just read the last 2 pages again), to list those past cases, but you keep ignoring it.

No I have not ignored anything. You don't understand what I posted, so you claim that I am evading. That just means you have lack of critical thinking. There's a way to be respectful if you don't agree with something, e.g. "I'm not understanding your reasoning, so I'm inclined to disagree with you here." Instead your responses are fuelled with spiteful accusations and petty nitpicking. I think at this point you're just getting emotional.

And when I asked you to bring up the PHL-CN case (which was the main topic to begin with) and to analyse it to validate your claims/speculations about that case, you keep ignoring it or give rediculous excuses.

They are not ridiculous, your narrow concreteness is what's ridiculous. I'm aware that you're struggling with understanding what I posted, due to the way in which you process information. I have elaborated on this many times, but you're still floundering, so like I said you just need to move on. There is no point flogging a dead horse over something you are incapable of doing.

See how you are clearly avoiding and refusing to analyse those PHL vs. CN data to verify your claims/speculations on that case. And not only did you give some ridiculous excuses (e.g. its condescending to ask that, readers can research it themselves ) but you went ahead in that post and analysed the data for the UK vs. Albania case to try to justify your speculations for the PHL-CN case. Why not just analyse the data for the PHL-CN directly to verify your PHL-CN speculations? If you had said you dont have time to analyse the PHL-CN data, then I might have believed you, but you put in so much time to analyse the UK-Albania data and trying to “abstract” from it. You have clearly been dodging my challenge to you to analyse the PHL-CN data to verify your speculations, because you probably can’t.

Excuse me but you're confusing yourself and then making accusations about me.
Like I've already said, those are own ideas so you should do it. You should be proud of your own ideas.

Everything is still there and clear to see.

Yes it is. It's clear you're just confusing yourself and trying to confuse everyone else with your red herrings.

At this moment, your rhetorics is basically to just keep denying, even if I point to the exact post as evidence. Now you have the audacity to say that you “have not dodged anything, ever”. What a funny guy.

I have not denied anything. You make dangerous accusations, you're emotional, and you're also petty. When you don't understand something, instead of opening up your mind and trying to abstract information, you just attack it in frustration.

 

[William Hung]

Oh? So we stopped the "case opened" and "case closed" thing. Based on intuition, I KNEW you'd respond like some crazy, controlling, self entitled arbiter.



Arguing over petty semantics red herring. And no you're not even thinking it through properly. No matter what petty nitpicking word you want to use, it was applied completely inappropriately because you're thought process is haywire; it's not an analogue, it's not a counter example, that's the bottomline. I thought we already established this.




You didn't even understand what I posted, so you're saying I'm avoiding it. But really your mind is avoiding it because it doesn't allow you to abstract information.



That is your own idea. I am not going to steal your idea and claim it as my own. If you want to do that then go ahead and do it yourself.



No I have not ignored anything. You don't understand what I posted, so you claim that I am evading. That just means you have lack of critical thinking. There's a way to be respectful if you don't agree with something, e.g. "I'm not understanding your reasoning, so I'm inclined to disagree with you here." Instead your responses are fuelled with spiteful accusations and petty nitpicking. I think at this point you're just getting emotional.



They are not ridiculous, your narrow concreteness is what's ridiculous. I'm aware that you're struggling with understanding what I posted, due to the way in which you process information. I have elaborated on this many times, but you're still floundering, so like I said you just need to move on. There is no point flogging a dead horse over something you are incapable of doing.



Excuse me but you're confusing yourself and then making accusations about me.
Like I've already said, those are own ideas so you should do it. You should be proud of your own ideas.



Yes it is. It's clear you're just confusing yourself and trying to confuse everyone else with your red herrings.



I have not denied anything. You make dangerous accusations, you're emotional, and you're also petty. When you don't understand something, instead of opening up your mind and trying to abstract information, you just attack it in frustration.

Basically, you can no longer debate and give proper replies, you are now just essentially declaring yourself to be in the right and me being in the wrong without the proper explanations, and then you would just stick your head in the sand.

No I have not ignored anything. You don't understand what I posted, so you claim that I am evading. That just means you have lack of critical thinking.

You have previously claimed, repetitively, that your “larger paradigm” are supported by “many” past legal cases. But you have narrowed your paradigm so much that only one past case now fits it, so I challenged you repetitively to list those supposedly “many” past cases. What was there to misunderstand about? and you have clearly read my challenges but you just simply dodge it (read post #97 and #99). So not only have you been dodging challenges directly against your postulations/speculations, you have also dodged challenges against your so-called “larger paradigm” (which you were trying to use to support your speculations).

That is your own idea. I am not going to steal your idea and claim it as my own. If you want to do that then go ahead and do it yourself.

What idea?? The idea that if you’ve made some specific claims/postulations or speculations about XYZ and if data on XYZ are publically available, then you need to bring up those data and an analysis on it to validate or verify your claims/postulations/speculations??? No, this is not my own idea , this is just common etiquette in a debate. See, this is just another ridiculous excuses of yours to avoid analysing the data on the PHL-CN case (in order to validate your postulations/speculations on it).

This is not about me wanting to do that, no, it is your obligation to do that to verify and validate your postulations and speculations on the PHL-CN case. People would take that as their obligations if they want others to respect their arguments and intellectual credential. However, you have only been dodging that obligation. If you can make that analysis on the UK-Albania case in post #72, then why don’t you make a similar analysis on the available data for the PHL-CN case? You were obviously dodging, and making funny excuses along the way.

And this reminds me, your rhetorics is pretty much the same as China’s rhetorics on the South China Sea issue. Your govt has only been making declarations on the SCS, that they have “indisputable sovereignty” with legal and historic backing, but never dared to explain or give an anaylsis how it would be so. When challenged to go to court to argue and present its “legal and historic” claim, China just ignore that request and refuse participate in court.

Your govt declares its rights over the 9 dashes line but when asked to clarify the line and its justifications, your govt just ignore that request, just like how you are now ignoring the request to back up your claims/postulations on the PHL-CN case. Data are available for the PHL-CN case and so I’m challenging you to bring those data and make an analysis on it to prove or verify your postulations, but you just keep dodging it. Basically, when you get challenged, all you could do is just to “declare” that you are right, your interlocutor is wrong, and then just stick your head in the sand , just like China don’t dare to participate when challenged to present its “legal and historic” case in the court, just declare that they have legal rights and then stick its head in the sand.

 

[Wolfwind]

Basically, you can no longer debate and give proper replies, you are now just essentially declaring yourself to be in the right and me being in the wrong without the proper explanations, and then you would just stick your head in the sand.

No I just can't be bothered to give you my time. I have explained more than enough times, but you just keep floundering and confusing yourself. I realised nearly all of your responses are just you getting frustrated because you don't understand what I posted. I'm not sure how to word this nicely, but I don't think you're very smart. If you enjoy intellectual conversation (which I can tell you are not unfamiliar with), then you would have already understood what I posted makes perfect sense. You have been abusing my patience.

What idea?? The idea that if you’ve made some specific claims/postulations or speculations about XYZ and if data on XYZ are publically available, then you need to bring up those data and an analysis on it to validate or verify your claims/postulations/speculations??? No, this is not my own idea , this is just common etiquette in a debate. See, this is just another ridiculous excuses of yours to avoid analysing the data on the PHL-CN case (in order to validate your postulations/speculations on it).

This is not about me wanting to do that, no, it is your obligation to do that to verify and validate your postulations and speculations on the PHL-CN case. People would take that as their obligations if they want others to respect their arguments and intellectual credential. However, you have only been dodging that obligation. If you can make that analysis on the UK-Albania case in post #72, then why don’t you make a similar analysis on the available data for the PHL-CN case? You were obviously dodging, and making funny excuses along the way.

And this reminds me, your rhetorics is pretty much the same as China’s rhetorics on the South China Sea issue. Your govt has only been making declarations on the SCS, that they have “indisputable sovereignty” with legal and historic backing, but never dared to explain or give an anaylsis how it would be so. When challenged to go to court to argue and present its “legal and historic” claim, China just ignore that request and refuse participate in court.

Your govt declares its rights over the 9 dashes line but when asked to clarify the line and its justifications, your govt just ignore that request, just like how you are now ignoring the request to back up your claims/postulations on the PHL-CN case. Data are available for the PHL-CN case and so I’m challenging you to bring those data and make an analysis on it to prove or verify your postulations, but you just keep dodging it. Basically, when you get challenged, all you could do is just to “declare” that you are right, your interlocutor is wrong, and then just stick your head in the sand , just like China don’t dare to participate when challenged to present its “legal and historic” case in the court, just declare that they have legal rights and then stick its head in the sand.

But I have explained more than enough times? Not understanding something does not mean I never explained, it means you never understood it, because you're concrete minded.

All of this is just red herrings, straw man arguments, and your confused ramblings. I don't have the patience to walk you through it a billion times.

 

[William Hung]

No I just can't be bothered to give you my time. I have explained more than enough times, but you just keep floundering and confusing yourself. I realised nearly all of your responses are just you getting frustrated because you don't understand what I posted. I'm not sure how to word this nicely, but I don't think you're very smart. If you enjoy intellectual conversation (which I can tell you are not unfamiliar with), then you would have already understood what I posted makes perfect sense. You have been abusing my patience.

If you can’t be bothered to give me your time, then why are you still replying? lol you’ve made a weak attempt at justifying your speculations/postulations on the PHL-CN case by examining a +60 years old legal case and trying to abstract a “larger paradigm”, when I highlighed its flaws and challenge your paradigm, you just simply ignore and evade it. See how you have quoted me by deliberately deleting out the second point that I’ve raised in my previous post? nice dodging there, again.

But I have explained more than enough times? Not understanding something does not mean I never explained, it means you never understood it, because you're concrete minded.

All of this is just red herrings, straw man arguments, and your confused ramblings. I don't have the patience to walk you through it a billion times.

I was asking you, since its your obligation, to bring up the readily available data on the PHL-CN case and an analysis on it showing how the judges/court is biased and has an ulterior motive against China, as you have originally speculated/postulated, but you have repetitively evaded this obligation. Now are you trying to say that you have already explained everything and that its me not being able to understand it? Or were you saying that your half-baked paradigm was enough for an explanation? In this case it is clearly not enough because when I raised issues (see my previous reply) against your paradigm, you just simply ignore and evade those issues raised.

 

[Wolfwind]

If you can’t be bothered to give me your time, then why are you still replying? See how you have quoted me by deliberately deleting out the second point that I’ve raised in my previous post? nice dodging there, again.

1. Because you are constantly lying that I am evading when I already explained it.
2. There's no point quoting / responding to something that I've already explained a billion times.

Basically, you didn't understand what I post, so you make lies that I evaded something. Then you go on to produce red herrings, straw man arguments, and petty nitpickings. You're a concrete minded and emotional type.

I was asking you, since its your obligation, to bring up the readily available data on the PHL-CN case and an analysis on it showing how the judges/court is biased and has an ulterior motive against China, as you have originally speculated/postulated, but you have repetitively evaded this obligation. Now are you trying to say that you have already explained everything and that its me not being able to understand it? Or were you saying that your half-baked paradigm was enough for an explanation? In this case it is clearly not enough because when I raised issues (see my previous reply) against your paradigm, you just simply ignore and evade those issues raised.

But that is your own idea. You post it. I'm not going to steal your ideas and claim it as my own. It is not my obligation because a) those are your own ideas, and b) I have already made full explanations of the content that I have posted, which makes perfect sense if you're able to abstract information.

 

[baal tu kela]

why is china making an open presence of its own in disputed areas of other countries i mean Azad Kashmir and freaks out when usa tries to show its presence in disputed china sea ??? these are completely ironic

 

[William Hung]

1. Because you are constantly lying that I am evading when I already explained it.
2. There's no point quoting / responding to something that I've already explained a billion times.

Basically, you didn't understand what I post, so you make lies that I evaded something. Then you go on to produce red herrings, straw man arguments, and petty nitpickings. You're a concrete minded and emotional type.

Read my post #110, I have explained clearly the exact issues you have been evading and some exact post # showing how you have clearly been evading it. You have been dodging for maybe the 7th or 8th time now and you are now trying to say you haven’t evaded anything? can you then tell me the exact post number where you have given a list of the “many” past legal cases that fits your “larger paradigm”? didn’t I said the only thing you could do now is to keep denying, even if I point out the exact post numbers? You are the first poster (Chinese or non-Chinese) I’ve met on PDF who have been this desperate and dishonest, don’t you have any shame?

But that is your own idea. You post it. I'm not going to steal your ideas and claim it as my own. It is not my obligation because a) those are your own ideas, and b) I have already made full explanations of the content that I have posted, which makes perfect sense if you're able to abstract information.

As I have said, that’s not my own idea, that’s just common etiquette in a debate: If you have made some specific claims/speculations/postulations about XYZ and if data on XYZ is readily available, the obligation is on you to present an analysis of that data to verify and validate your speculations/postulations. Your absolute refusal to do so just simply mean you cannot “back up” what you’ve said (other than to appeal to a half-baked and flawed paradigm and an analysis of a +60 years old legal case).

Just like China insisting that it has “indisputable sovereignty” over the Spratlys and rights to the nine dashes line. But when asked to present its “legal and historic” evidences in court or even just to clarify the nine dashs line and its legal basis, China just keep evading those challenges, because maybe its like you, China cannot back up what it said so it just keep evading the challenges.

 

[oproh]

Wow, william hung surely knows how to embarass himself.

 

[Jlaw]

Wow, william hung surely knows how to embarass himself.

He's a Khmer troll. At least the real william hung made a few million dollars.

 

[Wolfwind]

Read my post #110, I have explained clearly the exact issues you have been evading and some exact post # showing how you have clearly been evading it. You have been dodging for maybe the 7th or 8th time now and you are now trying to say you haven’t evaded anything? can you then tell me the exact post number where you have given a list of the “many” past legal cases that fits your “larger paradigm”? didn’t I said the only thing you could do now is to keep denying, even if I point out the exact post numbers? You are the first poster (Chinese or non-Chinese) I’ve met on PDF who have been this desperate and dishonest, don’t you have any shame?

As I have said, that’s not my own idea, that’s just common etiquette in a debate: If you have made some specific claims/speculations/postulations about XYZ and if data on XYZ is readily available, the obligation is on you to present an analysis of that data to verify and validate your speculations/postulations. Your absolute refusal to do so just simply mean you cannot “back up” what you’ve said (other than to appeal to a half-baked and flawed paradigm and an analysis of a +60 years old legal case).

1. You are constantly lying that I am evading when I already explained it. Go back and read it.
2. The only thing I am refusing to do is to repeat / repost something I've gone through many, many times. The posts are still there, you can go back and read it. There is no point repeating something, especially if you are not even going to understand it.
3. And yes, that is your own idea. So you post it.

Basically, you didn't understand what I post, so you make lies that I evaded something. Then you go on to produce red herrings, straw man arguments, and petty nitpickings. You're a concrete minded and emotional type.

 

[William Hung]

1. You are constantly lying that I am evading when I already explained it. Go back and read it.
2. The only thing I am refusing to do is to repeat / repost something I've gone through many, many times. The posts are still there, you can go back and read it. There is no point repeating something, especially if you are not even going to understand it.
3. And yes, that is your own idea. So you post it.

Basically, you didn't understand what I post, so you make lies that I evaded something. Then you go on to produce red herrings, straw man arguments, and petty nitpickings. You're a concrete minded and emotional type.

I’m constantly lying that you are evading when you have already explained? lol

I have already given you a concrete example of an issue and challenge that you were clearly evading, and I’ll repeat it again: In my post number #110 (and more before that), I asked you to list out the supposedly “many” past legal cases that you have claimed that are evidences in support of your “larger paradigm”. But you have never backed up this claim of yours by listing out those supposedly many cases, even when I repetitively asked you to do so.

You were clearly dodging this issue, and now you have the audacity to call me a liar for accusing you of evading? Then tell me please, in which exact post have you given a list of cases to back up your claim that there are “many”? Tell me that exact post number please...but I already know you can’t, because you have been evading it. Your one weak reply was that your abstraction is not only from one case, but also from other articles abstracted in a non-linear way. But this is just you avoiding the issue that you have claimed that there exist “many” past legal cases that support your abstraction, but then consistently evaded my requests to have those “many” cases listed for everyone to see.

What a joke, claimed something concrete but refused to back it up. And if you can’t tell me the post number where you have given that list, then maybe it is you that is the liar here. So, can you give me a reference to that post? (spoiler: the answer is no because you have been evading)

He's a Khmer troll. At least the real william hung made a few million dollars.

I’m neither a troll nor a Khmer, but thanks for bumping up this thread to keep it active.

 

[Wolfwind]

I’m constantly lying that you are evading when you have already explained? lol

I have already given you a concrete example of an issue and challenge that you were clearly evading, and I’ll repeat it again: In my post number #110 (and more before that), I asked you to list out the supposedly “many” past legal cases that you have claimed that are evidences in support of your “larger paradigm”. But you have never backed up this claim of yours by listing out those supposedly many cases, even when I repetitively asked you to do so.

You were clearly dodging this issue, and now you have the audacity to call me a liar for accusing you of evading? Then tell me please, in which exact post have you given a list of cases to back up your claim that there are “many”? Tell me that exact post number please...but I already know you can’t, because you have been evading it. Your one weak reply was that your abstraction is not only from one case, but also from other articles abstracted in a non-linear way. But this is just you avoiding the issue that you have claimed that there exist “many” past legal cases that support your abstraction, but then consistently evaded my requests to have those “many” cases listed for everyone to see.

What a joke, claimed something concrete but refused to back it up. And if you can’t tell me the post number where you have given that list, then maybe it is you that is the liar here. So, can you give me a reference to that post? (spoiler: the answer is no because you have been evading)

1.Yes, I have already explained enough times that linear reasoning cannot be applied to nonlinear paradigms. Your requests are fruitless and logically kaput. I have not evaded anything, I have fully explained it so many times, and yet you simply don't get it.

2. You're still lying, and also confusing yourself. You didn't understand what I posted, so you make claims like I am evading something. I don't think you're very smart.

3. Go look for it yourself. I am not helping you anymore because you have abused my patience too much. You can't even abstract from what I've posted to work out something so basic for yourself. You are disrespectful, yet want me to walk it through it with you, when I have already gone over it a billion times. I think you should just accept that you will never understand the value of what I posted due to how you are wired and how you process information.