Lik

Fuking moron,

If your mom can't even cook the food without turning them into poison (that is, if China can't even address the corruption problem and lack of proper rail track materials), why would you not stop her from cooking the moment you discover it?

Look who is fxxking stupid here.

-Lik

mcjohnjohn

好地地一條thread, 最終成為活躍會員口頭性愛既場所, 可悲也.

Guy

回復 8# rockypath

Technically I don't disagree both of your argument ....both are true and unideal...until "the mom cooking" theory....

Rockypath, please answer your own (modified) questions..when I change your theory conditions slightly...

Let’s say you are hungry and your mom orders servants cook for you. Because of your mom’s servants, who do not think about the damages of improper food handling and cooking method, contaminate the food is contaminated and the food becomes poisonous. After the meal, you are rushed to hospital because of food poisoning.

You asked:

Will you say you should not have been hungry since because your mom cannot find someone cook for you properly?
Will you not be hungry nor take foods until your mom canfood are cooked properly and handle food safely?

Mom's intention always right and well thought
it's just the person in the middle who take care of business doing the damages.

peter236

Are you fxxking stupid or what?!

When I saw the obvious signs that the food has been contaminated a ...
Lik 發表於 2011-8-21 20:57

You fuking moron. China burns a lot of coal. China produces sufficient high carbon clay.
Again,, you are a fuking moron.

Guy

回復 12# mcjohnjohn


    可悲可悲 very 可悲

They all saying the truth tho, but they don't take the time to understand each other's thoughts.

A fact against a fact, but both of them exist.
This argument is never going to conclude anything.

Where is the Hierarchy of Disagreement again?

rockypath

Fuking moron,

If your mom can't even cook the food without turning them into poison (that is, if Ch ...
Lik 發表於 2011-8-21 21:20

You fuxking moron,

Just answer my question directly – “Does your physical need for food depend on whether your mom can cook properly?”

Get your gut out and tell us – YES or NO. Will you fuxking coward dare to say YES or NO?

I will wait for you fuxking coward and see whether you have the gut to answer it.

rockypath

回復  rockypath

Technically I don't disagree both of your argument ....both are true and unideal.. ...
Guy 發表於 2011-8-21 21:24

Is my statement that difficult to understand? Ok, I try to restate it in a different way.

A:        You are hungry and you need food to fill your stomach (China needs a high-speed railway network for its future development).

B:        Your mom cooks for you (China builds the railway on its own).

C:        Your mom hires a servant to cook for you (China hires Japan to build the railway for it).

E:        Your mom cannon cook properly (China cannot build the railway because of its technical problems and corruption).

F:        The servant can cook wonderfully (Japanese technology is very advanced far beyond what is required and Japan has no corruption problem).

The logic is:

#1:        You are hungry. Does it have anything to do with who is cooking?  NO! If you are hungry, then you are hungry. It has nothing to do with who is cooking or no one is cooking for you.

#2:        You are hungry. Does it have anything to do with whether your mom can cook properly?  NO! If you are hungry, then you are hungry. It has nothing to do with whether your mom know how to cook or how wonderfully the servant she hires can cook.  Or you have to cook it for yourself.

OK, do you understand the statement I wanted to make now – China’s need for high-speed railway networks for its future development has nothing to do with its technical flaws or corruption problem?  

Last, mom’s intention has nothing to do with whether his son is hungry or not. If a son is hungry, then he is hungry regardless mom’s intention is good or bad.

Do I have to find another method to make my statement more clear?

Lik

Moron,

I never said China's need for high speed rail network have anything to do with the technical flaws and corruption problem. However, if the mom is only capable of cooking poisonous food right now, then obviously, the only sensible solution is to prevent mom from cooking, and make sure her cooking is problem free before allowing her to cook again. If it means hiring a servant to do the cooking, or if it means not eating home-cooked food, so be it.

The same line of reasoning applies in China's case. The point of contention here is the corruption and technical problems need to be fixed first, before China attempts to build something this high tech. If it means simply hiring the Japanese to build the trains, tracks, and such for them, so be it. If it means sticking to traditional trains that only goes up to however slow they go (120-ish?), so be it.

This is the same line of reasoning that I've been saying all along. It's just that you are too fxxking stupid to understand this.

-Lik

rockypath

Moron,

I never said China's need for high speed rail network have anything to do with the technical ...
Lik 發表於 2011-8-22 09:47

So, you finally admit physical need for food (China needs high-speed railway networks) has not thing to do with whether your mom can cook properly (whether China has the capability to build properly)?!

This is just a lesson telling you to use your brain more instead of your ass if you want to challenge me next time.

It was you who 先撩人者賤 （特別是不懷好意） - “一直讚高鐵讚到上天嘅 Peter仔呢？一直支持起高鐵嘅FY同Rocky呢？點解全部死撚散唔知去邊度？” (direct quote from your own words in post #2).

Just quote what I said exactly about China high-speed railway instead of putting words into my mouth.

1)        Did I support the building of high-speed railway network?  YES.
2)        Did I support the pace of building?                NO.
3)        Did I support the size of the network being build?                NO.
4)        Was I concerned about the safety of the network (both technical and operational)?                YES.
5)        Did I recognize the problem of corruption?        YES.

If you are looking for someone to fuxk here, that person can only be yourself.