Taiwan court upholds Ma's innocent verdict - Page 2

DarkWizard12 · 04-28-08, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red_Dave

And virtually every thread you make is about america, comme ci, comme ça

No duh, I live there.

Oh and...what threads have I made? I haven't really made threads that are AMERICA specifaclly.

Red_Dave · 04-28-08, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

No duh, I live there.

Oh and...what threads have I made? I haven't really made threads that are AMERICA specifaclly.

So you can post perpetually about US politics because its your country but Jfuh cant post about Taiwan [which i belive is his country of origin] in the asia pacific forum? Your being very obtuse about this.

DarkWizard12 · 04-28-08, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red_Dave

So you can post perpetually about US politics because its your country but Jfuh cant post about Taiwan [which i belive is his country of origin] in the asia pacific forum? Your being very obtuse about this.

No. You are not seeing the point.

Red_Dave · 04-28-08, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

No. You are not seeing the point.

then what am i missing?

jfuh · 04-28-08, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

Not from Reuters, from you.

They reported that the SUPREME COURT of Taiwan said he was "not guilty". Good for reuters. Thats a fact. What else is a fact is that I am not the supreme court, therefore I can decide for myself whether or not he is guilty in my mind.

Now, if I may see a transcript of the court case, or evidence or anyhting that was discussed at the court so that there IS something to debate besides "did the taiwan court find Ma guilty?" BEcause, you know, that simple fact is not much for a debate.

So presenting Reuters is thus partisan? Presenting a news article unless I present both sides of the court case is then partisan?
Sorry like any topic here in this forum, if you're going to debate it or wish to debate it you better bring in some knowledge about it. It's not my job to educate you on the matter. If you don't know the relevant material, either 1) already know something about it; or
2) do your homework on the topic

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

I have a right to free speech and I use as a shield to disagree with you. Don;t like it? Deal with it.

It's quite simple DW, you either are going to debate the topic with what you know, do your homework and bring something to discuss, or shut up, sit on the side and learn something. If that's not your thing and you must bring in this UScentric rant about this forum or how you don't care, then don't care quite simple.

DarkWizard12 · 04-28-08, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

So presenting Reuters is thus partisan?Presenting a news article unless I present both sides of the court case is then partisan?
Sorry like any topic here in this forum, if you're going to debate it or wish to debate it you better bring in some knowledge about it. It's not my job to educate you on the matter. If you don't know the relevant material, either 1) already know something about it; or
2) do your homework on the topic

No. Its counter-productive. There is nothing to debate. Did Taiwan uphold a verdict or not? Really now, how can anyone debate that? I'm only asking your provide the WHY. WHY did the court make that decision. And, no, it wasn't because the "Pan Green sucks"

Quote:

It's quite simple DW, you either are going to debate the topic with what you know, do your homework and bring something to discuss, or shut up, sit on the side and learn something. If that's not your thing and you must bring in this UScentric rant about this forum or how you don't care, then don't care quite simple.

Ok.

I affirm that some taiwan court upholded Ma's innocent verdict. Aha! The link says so! I win.

I'm not saying reuters is partisan. I'm saying its useless, and your little remarks in the beginning did nothing to spur honest debate.

jfuh · 04-28-08, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

No. Its counter-productive. There is nothing to debate. Did Taiwan uphold a verdict or not? Really now, how can anyone debate that? I'm only asking your provide the WHY. WHY did the court make that decision. And, no, it wasn't because the "Pan Green sucks"

Ok.

I affirm that some taiwan court upholded Ma's innocent verdict. Aha! The link says so! I win.

I'm not saying reuters is partisan. I'm saying its useless, and your little remarks in the beginning did nothing to spur honest debate.

Again, if you understood the context you would understand. Right now you're simply being obtuse and arguing for the sake of argument rather than the topic at hand.
If you wish to debate then look up pan green look up pan blue look up the controversy surrounding the allegations that led to Ma's "indictment" in the first place