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

[Chau Ve Nist]

Locke, He sure can twist and turn like a worm. On the contrary, I thot you were quite consistent.

I agree he was very consistent.......in being stubborn and trivial.

Even small trivial things like "magazine" and "journal" that I didn't even bother to respond to him initially even though he was wrong was brought up again by him when he thought he could come out looking clever or score some cheap points on something irrelevant and unimportant. What happened? He was then made to look like a fool. Who to blame?

Look, trying to gang up in numbers is no substitute for the truth or for your lack of abilities. If you are that intelligent or capable, you can fight your own battles without ganging up in numbers to purvey nonsense and falsehoods which you all, even in a group, are unable to substantiate. All it does is that it reduces you all to talking with each other to seek consolation, comfort and solace in each others arms when your arguments (if you can call them that) are soundly trashed.

I am not intimidated by people coming together to bray loudly and in one identical chorus or to reinforce each others braying or to outbray each other in their quest to be the loudest and most strident empty vessel. If empty vessels or donkeys had rule the world, planet earth will still be flat and everyone would fall off the horizon if they walk right to the edge.

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

Chau Ve Nist = Chee Soon Juan !!!!

At the rate at which you are going, you may have to build a warehouse just to store all your Nobel Peace Prizes.

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

Spot on. He used 4 exceptions to prove the rule, when there were many many others who were prepared to go all the way. It wld not be fair if those majority were treated as phoneys.And then our dear Einstein/Hawkings wannabe used what the 4 did as THE DEFACTO definition of hunger strike.

Don't be daft. I never said those who went all the way were "phoneys". As I have already stated clearly, there are a whole lot of "exceptions" than those four that I quoted just as there are whole lot similar to those four.

One again, the authenticity of a hunger strike is not determined whether you die or are determined to die. Get it? Too difficult a concept to grasp?

I am not belittling CSJ but I'd rather he and his supporters called it a fast and not a hunger strike, which shld be reserved for those suicidal protesters who wish to become martyrs. Certainly not Chau. A Muslim fasts but after that, he eats like a horse.

A hunger strike, as I have patiently explain out of utmost respect for you and your gang's hard earned statuses as hunger strikes experts and Nobel Laureates in-waiting, IS a "fast". It is a political fast. Get it? Too difficult a concept for you to grasp? Need me to translate this in sign language for you and your little gang?

 

[Ramseth]

Don't understand why this has become hunger strike versus fast. A fast is fast, at certain appointed time, the fast is over and regular intake of food resumes. It's personal or religious, nothing to do with protest. A fast can even be lowered down to a diet for health reasons.

A hunger strike is a protest against a certain opponent or for a certain cause. The no intake of food is the same as strike as in industrial strike of not working, that's why hunger strike is called a strike too.

Of course, industrial strikers and hunger strikers can choose to go all the way to be destitute or dead. But must industrial strikers lose their jobs and means of living permanently to make that a valid strike? If not, why must hunger strikers die for the hunger strike to be valid.

What's a hunger strike by definition? Let's break it into two words. Hunger and strike. Strike, I've already explained as aforementioned. Hunger is now the key. The striker suffers the hunger pangs and resists the yearning for food.

It's different from ancient Chinese prisoner hunger strikes. They protested nothing. They had lost the cause or war and were captured. They had no means of suicide other than refusing food intake. They wanted to die as their cause was lost.

Back into context of Dr. Chee, was he fighting for a cause or did he want to die?

 

[kingrant]

It's clear what you are saying. Altho you try to make yrself unintelligible, I still see thru what you are saying, but that doesnt mean I (or we) agree. That's the trouble here.

You are saying a hunger strike is a fast. I, We, say it is not! A fast is a fast, and a hungerstrike is a hunger strike. The diff we are claiming here, and you are too daft to get it, is between one is prepared to die or not.

Those who are not prepared to sacrifice themselves for their cause better not abuse the term "hunger strike" - just call it a fast and nobody will argue with you anymore.

We are not ganging up, so quit whining. We just happened to concur because our views agree. Too bad you are not in the company of wise men. You better stay away from pitbulls, bulls and anything even remotely resembling a cow or pig as well.

Don't be daft. I never said those who went all the way were "phoneys". As I have already stated clearly, there are a whole lot of "exceptions" than those four that I quoted just as there are whole lot similar to those four.

One again, the authenticity of a hunger strike is not determined whether you die or are determined to die. Get it? Too difficult a concept to grasp?



A hunger strike, as I have patiently explain out of utmost respect for you and your gang's hard earned statuses as hunger strikes experts and Nobel Laureates in-waiting, IS a "fast". It is a political fast. Get it? Too difficult a concept for you to grasp? Need me to translate this in sign language for you and your little gang?

 

[cleareyes]

You are saying a hunger strike is a fast. I, We, say it is not! A fast is a fast, and a hungerstrike is a hunger strike. The diff we are claiming here, and you are too daft to get it, is between one is prepared to die or not.

This fellow is not daft. he is doing whatever he can....and in this case...a very stubborn hold on his opinion, that what Chee did is consider a hunger strike and chee is fighting for some cause ( more of his protest against his dismissial from NUS)

For me, Chee was not conducting a hunger strike but merely a publicity fast so that people would pity him over his "unfair" dismissial. And chee tried to make it look political by "inviting" his SDP people of that time to support him, which does turn out to be quite a joke.

Chee is not conducting any form of strike, but more of a fast as he had actually ensuring his own safety and health and is not willing to risk anything of his own.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Chau

Must just be me but index of censorship was never an academic "journal" per say unlike Foreign Affairs or say Journal of Democracy. If u chose to use "journals" and bandy it about as in academia then do differentiate between what is a well written well regarded academic journal and a weekly well regarded magazine like newsweek economist and or index of censorship



Locke

 

[Debonerman]

Fuck you Lock! Suck on my dick!

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Chau

I would like to say that you are as academically dishonest as you are intellectually with your selective quotations and misquotations. A quick afternoon at a well stocked book store gave me the following two readings from well known books on the Tianamen Square incident. Do read and understand the words highlighted in capitals

Suffice it to say whilst you have taken and misquoted the actions of four individuals as proof of your theories, you have IGNORED the actions of hundreds or even thousands who were willing to undertake a hunger strike and risk death and health I would like to add that the actions of those you have quoted supported the main DRAMA listed in the accounts below. GLUCOSE Chee however was the MAIN drama

a. Prisoner of the State Private Journal of Zhao Zhi Yang pg 31

Besides greeting the students I improvised a speech that ended up being printed in all the major newspapers in the capitol.....When I spoke I was trying to PERSUADE them to end the hunger strike, telling them that they were young and MUST TREASURE their lives .....It would not matter if the hunger strike continued , if some young people DIED they the elders would not be MOVED.... I felt it was waste for the YOUNG STUDENTS to END their lives

b. Tiananmen Papers pg 153 Declaration of Student Handbill.

In the bright sunlight of may , we have begun a HUNGER STRIKE , During the glorious days of our youth we have no choice but to ABANDON the beauty of life. yet how reluctant or unwilling we are, ........this HUNGER STRIKE has been forced upon us we have no choice It is by a individual voice to DIE that we struggle for life.




Locke

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Ramseth

Nope death is not absolutely necessary but a serious threat to health is at least a demonstration of committment to the cause. You may note Chau's reluctance to acknowledge the seriousness of the intent behind the hunger strikers of tianamen or the seriousness of most famous ones concerned.

He was fighting for a cause but he was the cause and the main cause and GLUCOSE chee did not demonstrate any degree of spine in going all the way or even half the way.



Locke

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

You are saying a hunger strike is a fast. I, We, say it is not! A fast is a fast, and a hungerstrike is a hunger strike. The diff we are claiming here, and you are too daft to get it, is between one is prepared to die or not.

Because I see you as a good man despite your ignorance of hunger strikes, your lame flames, and your sense of entitlement that you should be talked to in polite and deferential tones because you consider yourself an "oldbie" (Gotcha!), I will try to make it easy for you. I will use a military term that I hope, if you are indeed not just a runner, should be familiar with.

Your problem is one which is called SOA, Situating Of Appreciation. It is not Appreciation of Situation.

You have already decided that CSJ's hunger strike is a "fake". Hence, everything you do is centred around your conclusion that it is a "fake" even though it is wrong. You are doing an SOA instead of an AOS.

The equivalent military analogy is that you have already decided you want to conduct a left flank on an enemy' position. Your Bde S2 reminds you of the presence of a swamp that was identified during terrain studies. That swamp will slow down your Bde's progress and make your Bde very susceptible to enemy ambushes. But you insist on using this left flank. You justify it by talking about "surprise", "quiet aproach" etc because you have already made up your mind that that you want to go that way even though all your planning staff know that it will be a disaster. You are doing an SOA and not an AOS. That is one of the main causes of your problem.

Now I know you will jump and use my analogy to claim that I am the one doing SOA instead of you. Let me tell you this. I did my studies on hunger strikes way before way before I knew who the hell CSJ is, way before he entered politics and certainly way before he carried out his hunger strike.

As I said, CSJ is CSJ. A hunger strike is a hunger strike. Don't let your jaundiced views of one man affect your quest for knowledge and the truth.

In this respect, I must credit Ramseth and I am not saying this because we share the same viewpoints on this issue. I have already acknowledged him several years ago as the most "level-headed" WP forummer back in the old forum as compared to the young and dumb riff-raffs in WP like lockeliberal who argue for the sake of arguing, even way back in Tan Chong Kee's Sintercom forum, simply because he wants to save face. He thinks an exchange is about "winning" instead of a quest for knowledge and that is why he goes on and on and on and on and on even though it may be about very trivial issues like "magazine" and "journal".

Cheers Bro. Have a good day.

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

This fellow is not daft. he is doing whatever he can....and in this case...a very stubborn hold on his opinion, that what Chee did is consider a hunger strike and chee is fighting for some cause ( more of his protest against his dismissial from NUS)

For me, Chee was not conducting a hunger strike but merely a publicity fast so that people would pity him over his "unfair" dismissial. And chee tried to make it look political by "inviting" his SDP people of that time to support him, which does turn out to be quite a joke.

Chee is not conducting any form of strike, but more of a fast as he had actually ensuring his own safety and health and is not willing to risk anything of his own.

My message to kingrant above applies to you as well. I have no intention of repeating it again.

Cheers Bro. Have a good day.

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

Dear Chau

I would like to say that you are as academically dishonest as you are intellectually with your selective quotations and misquotations. A quick afternoon at a well stocked book store gave me the following two readings from well known books on the Tianamen Square incident. Do read and understand the words highlighted in capitals

Suffice it to say whilst you have taken and misquoted the actions of four individuals as proof of your theories, you have IGNORED the actions of hundreds or even thousands who were willing to undertake a hunger strike and risk death and health I would like to add that the actions of those you have quoted supported the main DRAMA listed in the accounts below. GLUCOSE Chee however was the MAIN drama

Locke

I have already stated this in my reply to you in Msg 181:

"No point looking up "references" about those who are willing to die. I can do that myself and in fact, I have a whole lot of references about people who are willing to die.That does not change the fact that a willingness to die is not a criteria by which a hunger strike is to be judged genuine or fake.

The simple point that needs to get into your thick head is that a willingness to die is not a determinant of the validity, authenticity or success of a hunger strike."​

Now which part of what I stated did you not understand or had to go to a "well stocked book store" just to find something that I can do from the comfort of my home by simply using a mouse, a keyboard and google?

Trying to wriggle out your way by introducing some new rubbish concept of "main drama", "small drama" rubbish does not in the fucking least show that a willingness to die is a criteria by which a hunger strike is to be judged genuine or fake.

If I continue to humour you, you will next tell me that only females who were having menses during their hunger strikes can only be considered "genuine" and the the others "fake" because they were not losing enough blood and hence, like consuming glucose, had an unfair advantage. Or that men who have low metabolic rates cannot be considered "genuine" hunger strikers as compared to men who have high metabolic rates because they do not lose energy as fast as men with high metabolic rates.

Duh!

 

[kingrant]

you are very clever at twisting other people's arguments to suit yr "little hole" of agreement. I don't care who was doing the hunger strike-Chee, Gandi, or LKY. I was disputing yr definition of a hunger strike. And if Chee happens to be doing it, and it didnt look to me to be one, I'll say it is a fast and not a hunger strike. Chee has nothing to do with my differentiation. So it isnt that I look at Chee first and then discriminate agianst him and then define hunger strike. If Chee had pushed himself to the extreme, and had to be forcefed glucose by the prison auths, then ok, I concede Chee wants to be a martyr and therefore his act is a hunger strike. But not that he is Chee- it is his will to die, or lack of it, that diff betw a hunger strike and a fast. So you just made up and create yr own crap called SOA and the rest of the swamp thing to justify yr arguments. It is called using a false premise to prove the proposition. Then you keep recycling.

Because I see you as a good man despite your ignorance of hunger strikes, your lame flames, and your sense of ....

And you dont have to sound conciliatory and now try to back out by calling me a good man. Whether it is a hunger strike or a fast has nothing to do with whtehr I am a good man or an arsehole.

You have already decided that CSJ's hunger strike is a "fake". Hence, everything you do is centred around your conclusion that it is a "fake" even though it is wrong. You are doing an SOA instead of an AOS.

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

Dear Chau

Must just be me but index of censorship was never an academic "journal" per say unlike Foreign Affairs or say Journal of Democracy. If u chose to use "journals" and bandy it about as in academia then do differentiate between what is a well written well regarded academic journal and a weekly well regarded magazine like newsweek economist and or index of censorship

Locke

As usual, you are now attempting to shift the goalpost by introducing a new term, "academic journal" when all along, you were arguing that it is a "magazine" and not a "journal" and when you actually think you have something to grasp at and another little point to score .

The simple difference between a "journal' and an "academic journal" is that an academic journal, unlike a journal, is peer reviewed. Get it?

If you want to go down even further into the classification chain, "academic journals" which are a category of "journals" can be further sub-classified into "Scientific", "Humanities", etc journals.

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. I hope this is not too difficult a concept for you to grasp.

The example you quoted as being an academic journal, "Journal of Democracy" is indeed a journal. But it may not neccessarily , even though it is academic in nature, be an "academic journal" . This is because if the rules of what constitutes an academic journal is strictly followed, it may not qualify as an academic journal because, by its own admission, it is "NOT formally peer reviewed".

The other example you quoted as being an academic journal , "Foreign Affairs" (published by the Council of Foreign Relations) is NOT an "academic journal". It is "heavyweight" and "academic" in nature but does not qualify to be an "academic journal" because it is NOT peer reviewed.

Look, you may have your misguided but strident views over trivial matters like "journal" and "magazines" and continue to argue over and over and over and aimlessly without any end just to try to look clever to your friends and party colleagues since you are known to them. That does not make you right.

In any case MY, there is no point arguing with me. Get your alma mater, LSE, to educate you on this. The money you paid for your education went to them and not to me.

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

you are very clever at twisting other people's arguments to suit yr "little hole" of agreement. I don't care who was doing the hunger strike-Chee, Gandi, or LKY. I was disputing yr definition of a hunger strike. And if Chee happens to be doing it, and it didnt look to me to be one, I'll say it is a fast and not a hunger strike. Chee has nothing to do with my differentiation. So it isnt that I look at Chee first and then discriminate agianst him and then define hunger strike. If Chee had pushed himself to the extreme, and had to be forcefed glucose by the prison auths, then ok, I concede Chee wants to be a martyr and therefore his act is a hunger strike. But not that he is Chee- it is his will to die, or lack of it, that diff betw a hunger strike and a fast. So you just made up and create yr own crap called SOA and the rest of the swamp thing to justify yr arguments. It is called using a false premise to prove the proposition. Then you keep recycling..

No problem Bro. There's no need to convince me. You have to convince the world of your misinformed and misguided views.

And you dont have to sound conciliatory and now try to back out by calling me a good man. Whether it is a hunger strike or a fast has nothing to do with whtehr I am a good man or an arsehole.

Unless you have not been able to comprehend what I have been saying, I am hardly trying to "back out" of anything. Neither am I trying to be "conciliatory" by calling you a "good man" or am I trying to make up with you. I am simply doing so because I pity you. I have always had a soft spot for the misguided and misinformed and people who are not too bright, i.e. so long as they are not overly querulous like lockeliberal.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Chau

Selective quotation or selective misunderstanding is at best wilful ignorance or at worst a lack of basic comprehension.

The quotes are just not quotes, the sources indicated the ORIGINAL INTENT of the hunger strikers at Tianmen as written by them and as viewed by a leading politician of that time.

I am sure that of the two hundred or two thousand who started the hunger strike you can find ten or twenty who joined only for a couple of days or three days etc etc but the courage and intent of the MAIN EVENT cannot be denied.

If one views the event as a group event with a clear intent as a group, then the actions of those who did not chose to go all the way but in some small part tried to support the actions of those who did and want to go all the way CAN NOT be considered as reflective of the majority.

Furthurmore their actions MUST Be seen in context of the main event and not seperate from it.

Glucose Chee was a a play and drama directed by chee, starring chee, publicity by chee etc etc etc. There is a world of difference




Locke

 

[lockeliberal]

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

 

[kingrant]

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!

That's what you are good at doing - saying something and then contradict yrself the next post.

Physician, try healing yrself with self-pity. you need it not me.

No problem Bro. There's no need to convince me. You have to convince the world of your misinformed and misguided views.



Unless you have not been able to comprehend what I have been saying, I am hardly trying to "back out" of anything. Neither am I trying to be "conciliatory" by calling you a "good man" or am I trying to make up with you. I am simply doing so because I pity you. I have always had a soft spot for the misguided and misinformed and people who are not too bright, i.e. so long as they are not overly querulous like lockeliberal.

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

Dear Chau Selective quotation or selective misunderstanding is at best wilful ignorance or at worst a lack of basic comprehension.

What "selective quotation or selective misunderstanding" are you blabbering about this time around? You have been shown up by me and no less by your own friend and party colleague to be spewing rubbish about hunger strikes. When party colleagues or friends break publicly, it is simply shows that they feel enough is enough. Most, unlike, Ramseth whom I have always described as being level-headed, would grimace in private and simply hope you would stop spewing your rubbish and end it quickly.

The quotes are just not quotes, the sources indicated the ORIGINAL INTENT of the hunger strikers at Tianmen as written by them and as viewed by a leading politician of that time.

I am sure that of the two hundred or two thousand who started the hunger strike you can find ten or twenty who joined only for a couple of days or three days etc etc but the courage and intent of the MAIN EVENT cannot be denied.

If one views the event as a group event with a clear intent as a group, then the actions of those who did not chose to go all the way but in some small part tried to support the actions of those who did and want to go all the way CAN NOT be considered as reflective of the majority.

Furthurmore their actions MUST Be seen in context of the main event and not seperate from it.

Glucose Chee was a a play and drama directed by chee, starring chee, publicity by chee etc etc etc. There is a world of difference

Locke

Some of the rubbish you have spewed thus far:

1. Hunger strike for one day cannot be considered a hunger strike and only a "fast" but if carried out by thousands, that one day fast can then be considered a hunger strike.

2. Sugared water, tea, coffee, fruit juice is okay for consumption but not glucose. You were too fucking ignorant to even know the obvious that the body will convert the various sugars in these drinks/juices to glucose.

3. Hunger strike must be "major" and not "minor" to be considered a hunger strike.

4. Some other rubbish that I can't even bother remembering or going back to look up as I don't pay critical attention to rubbish.

And now, "courage" and "intent" to die is your newest and latest criteria in whether a hunger strike is successful???

Why don't you go all the way and come up with the length of pubic hair being the sole criteria for a hunger strike to being judged genuine or fake?

I surprise myself that I am actually entertaining your rubbish and have the patience to try to educate you even all this while even though the money for your education went to LSE and not to me.

I must be mellowing with age. Either that or I am in awe of your status as a Nobel Peace Prize winner.