1st world country, 3rd world situation, Uniquely Singapore

Beautiful951
7 Aug 08, 12:20

Originally posted by maurizio13:

there was actually someone who started a thread in whinehouse.

That was me. Actually I put it on Aunt angony but dunno who changed it.
stupidissmart
7 Aug 08, 12:45

you feel pity for his parents that he is on the dean's list, 1st class honours, etc...?

So u know him personally ? No wonder the cahoot u two r in together

Read carefully: end 2007 to start 2009 is at most 2 years.

According to economic cycles, 2011 will be a good year (take it as plus minus 6 months).

Somehow, you are very willing to take historical data (dated 1 year ago) and tell me the employment situation now is ok. Yet when empirical data of economic downturns for the last 30 years been presented to you, you are telling me you are not accepting it?

The data presented 1 year ago is teling the situation one year ago. The data for the last 30 years ? Where is it ? As said before, no one can really predict when will the business cycle comes and goes. It is even stated in the definition of the word. U felt the end will come at 2011 plus minus 6 months ? Now which month of 2011 otherwise it is again another 2 years and it is pretty influential for a country growth

There has been no such data and observance by anyone. You heard, but did you observe such a trend happening, or do you have any empirical data?

Well, no. But can u propose why does the gov insist on recruiting a lot of foreigners now when job is getting scarce ?

Well, we all could see how bad your language was. Employ people who "do not do anything" indeed.

Not to mention that your thought processes is such that you would take extreme cases to justfiy some imaginary point of yours.

Lets see, from CNN

"Do not participate in unapproved marches and other activities and do not do anything that will affect the social stability. Express yourselves calmly, rationally and in an orderly fashion," China's Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said, according to The Associated Press.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/04/19/china.japan/index.html

from BBC

But he warned: "If we do not do anything now, what we are basically saying is that we will not hit targets for emissions, the climate will continue to be damaged and we will bequeath to our children a much more threatening environment than our own.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/4017061.stm

From House of the Lords

Do not do anything commercially which in any way might undermine the brand values that the BBC public service has built up.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/50/5070614.htm

In the report from United States Department of agriculture
DO NOT do anything which might be misconstrued or reflect poorly on your personal judgment, professional demeanor, or be embarrassing to you, your employer, or your country.

http://www.usda.gov/da/pdsd/Security%20Guide/T4travel/Avoid.htm

And u r telling me it is bad english ?

I don't think u have the right to comment since it is used by a lot of politicians and even senior officers in England and America. Why don't u write a letter and ridicule them of using bad english

So you telling me, if we call FireIce as fifi, and call Maurizio13 as M13, it's rude?

They didn't give any consent at all.

Fifi and M13 is not derogative. If I say FireIce as Fierce or Maurizio13 as Mario, then it is rude

Well, if a cashier, who is totally not close to me at all, is rude to me, and you can tell me she's isn't rude because it's just a look, then tell me now it's because of what I have described, then you are not making sense here.

U r just trying to make the sentence structure look strange here. A cashier gives u a "look". It is not really the kind of rudeness people cannot tolerate or worth mentioning

I believe I have already settled with you the French pple part. Also, I have already pointed out to you that this behaviour is not accepted too even if the cashier is Singaporean. Are you being as autistic as Gazelle to bring up answered questions and posts again?

It is not settled. U just don't reply to it. I keep asking why the strong emphasis on the question "if u r from a foreign country and working here, will I be rude" which u never answer. Since u never give me a satisfactory answer, why can't I bring it out again ? I thought the "look" from the cashier is already "stopped". How come u become autistic and bring up questions and posts again like Gazelle ?

Just because I toned down my description of the act that has happened and you think that she's not rude?

Then perhaps something is wrong with your english and tat is why people think she is not rude. Maybe u will like to describe exactly how the "look" is like honestly

Do you understand what is meant by 3rd party in our discussion?

3rd party can mean anything here such as writing the letter to the MOM. Maybe u should reconsider phrasing the question properly and specifically mention wat 3rd party r u talking about.

eagle

7 Aug 08, 13:10

Stupidissmart, your english ah....

I'm not going to waste any more time to convince you on your illogical mind if you refuse to believe. Will only state to you your english:

Those that you state are of a different nature of what you have written

Do not do anything that will affect the social stability

Do not do anything commercially

DO NOT do anything which might be misconstrued or reflect poorly on your personal judgment, professional demeanor, or be embarrassing to you, your employer, or your country.

If we do not do anything now

Let me teach you a bit

Do not do anything that will affect the social stability

Do not do anything commercially ......

DO NOT do anything which might be misconstrued or reflect poorly on your personal judgment, professional demeanor, or be embarrassing to you, your employer, or your country.

"If we do not do anything now" is someone's spoken phrase.

Sure, fitting in "do nothing" can work as well. But the way you used it in your statement....

Seldom will you find this phrase or this usage of

"people who do not do anything."

stupidissmart

7 Aug 08, 13:33

Com'on... it is already written in the report by United States Department of Agriculture itself. A written form. So now u wanna play with the phrase "people who do not do anything" instead ?

An article

People who do not do anything can be bad or good natured but do not really show it.

http://ezinearticles.com/?What-Does-History-Show-About-The-Nature-Of-Human-Beings?&id=630050

And as Albert Einstein cautioned, “The world is a dangerous place to live. Not because of the people who are evil, but because of those people who do not do anything about it.”

http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=245494&ct=1055065

Words from outgoing nigerian ambassador

What I really dislike is the reaction of outside countries that are trying to get moral capital out of it. Twenty-five thousand Africans are dying every day from Aids. Thirty million Africans are infected with Aids. People who do not do anything about this - people who do not even help African students who can't pay their school fees - come and demonstrate to the embassy sending a million signatures to us and all that.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200302140061.html?page=5

Even Albert Einstein had use the phrase "people who do not do anything". Wat rights do u have to comment on it ? U can use the phrase "people who do not do anything" on google and u can find tons of people using it. Even the outgoing ambassador to nigerian also uses tis phrase. Who r u to comment on their english ?

eagle

7 Aug 08, 13:39

Even Albert Einstein had use the phrase "people who do not do anything". Wat rights do u have to comment on it ? U can use the phrase "people who do not do anything" on google and u can find tons of people using it. Even the outgoing ambassador to nigerian also uses tis phrase. Who r u to comment on their english ?

Please take better examples. These are not edited by any chief editors for language.

And look carefully at what I pointed out

"people who do not do anything."

Note the full stop?

Wasn't that what you say? Employing people who do not do anything.

stupidissmart

7 Aug 08, 13:46

Please take better examples. These are not edited by any chief editors for language.

And look carefully at what I pointed out

"people who do not do anything."

Note the full stop?

Wasn't that what you say? Employing people who do not do anything.

They r made by the most intelligent person in the world and also by a senior officer in America. They r already a good gauge that there is nothing wrong with using the phrase "people who do not do anything".

The problem is u felt a better substitute is "do nothing" which is actually replacing "who do not do anything". Your full statement is "people who did nothing". The "people who" is still repeated in your ideal statement. If u look at "do not do anything", even a report by United States Department of Agriculture has explicitly written tis in its report.

stupidissmart

7 Aug 08, 13:57

people do not do anything blah blah blah
e.g. people do not do anything about it, people do not do anything wrong, people do not do anything illegal, people do not do anything stupid, people do not do anything now

has nothing wrong.

But you are saying "people who do not do anything."
Anything what?

"Anything" is really "any thing". And ? Wat is the specific law in English tat I had broken in using the phrase ? As said, einstein and gov officials had used the terms themselves. Who r u to comment on their english ?

eagle

7 Aug 08, 14:03

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

Anything is really any thing. And ? Wat is the specific law in English tat I had broken in using the phrase ?

We were not talking about any grammatical errors.

We were talking about the way and context in which you use it.

I don't know how to explain to you, but this is more of the feel of the language. I did something similar to what you have done before in my essay; it was my friend in arts who helped me edit my essay, so that everything sounds more proper, more correct, and nicer.

stupidissmart

7 Aug 08, 14:07

We were not talking about any grammatical errors.

We were talking about the way and context in which you use it.

I don't know how to explain to you, but this is more of the feel of the language. I did something similar to what you have done before in my essay; it was my friend in arts who helped me edit my essay, so that everything sounds more proper, more correct, and nicer.

Well tat is your personal experience. I am not writing a report to be read by delegates from other countries or a business proposal to beat competition or even an english exam. If it is a proper statement without grammatical errors and the point get through achieving the desired results, wat r u complaining about ?

eagle

7 Aug 08, 14:14

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

Well tat is your personal experience. I am not writing a report to be read by delegates from other countries or a business proposal to beat competition or even an english exam. If it is a proper statement without grammatical errors and the point get through, wat r u complaining about ?

Back to the same thing

You are still telling us that the point got through when you told us MOM's reply was weird?

2nd, I believed that M13 and I have already told you that your email wasn't even accurate description. You are still insisting it is?

stupidissmart

7 Aug 08, 14:17

Back to the same thing

You are still telling us that the point got through when you told us MOM's reply was weird?

I have written something different for MOM. Take note the previous letter is for IRAS. Did u read the letter I send to MOM ? No. So how can u comment on it?

2nd, I believed that M13 and I have already told you that your email wasn't even accurate description. You are still insisting it is?

Tat is very strange. I am asking MY enquiry. They answered MY enquiry. I insist I make a right description of MY enquiry. Who r u to insist it is not ?

maurizio13

7 Aug 08, 14:21

Originally posted by eagle:

Back to the same thing

You are still telling us that the point got through when you told us MOM's reply was weird?

2nd, I believed that M13 and I have already told you that your email wasn't even accurate description. You are still insisting it is?

From a tax avoidance point of view, it was like he was incriminating himself, any rational (sane) taxpayer won't be that dumb to do it, even if their motive was to gain a tax advantage.

The letter he wrote was more like a tax suicide note from a taxpayer.

stupidissmart

7 Aug 08, 14:24

From a tax avoidance point of view, it was like he was incriminating himself, any rational (sane) taxpayer won't be that dumb to do it, even if their motive was to gain a tax advantage.

I already answered u before. I am asking from a law point of perspective. The question has always been whether is it legal or illegal, and not whether can it be found out or not. Why don't u read back tis passage and comment on it first

I already mentioned the important point is the underlying law on it. U can classify it as someone who bring in business by literaly doing nothing and claim all sort of things, but then if the case is taken the task is to convince the judge the case u wanted to state. If just claiming and trying to justify your action is already sufficient, then there is really no law tat can stop u from doing all the illegal things.

U can state u recruit someone who do nothing, claim to bring in business and then get all the company profit and strangely remit them back to u eventually. U claim it is not wrong to recruit someone who do nothing.

Then I can also state I have the right to walk around with a knife pointing outward and tis particular person who had grieviences with me just bumps into me and die in my hand. Is it wrong for me to carry a knife ?

I can also claim i love to run around with hand outstretch and then touch all the women private part because I cannot control my running. Is it wrong to run with hands outstretched ?

The way u ask is already more on whether can the case be found out, and not on whether is the whole deal illegal. Tat is why there is a need for a judge or a jury to cross off claims which is deemed to be excessive or illogical. Otherwise why do u think we need a judge ? Just claiming doesn't means it is right. It has to convince the judge in the end. The important thing about the enquiry is to know the baseline, tat is the part on whether is it legal or not. The ways to cover up etc is just redundant in the enquiry.

Tat is why for the 2 scenario I have stated, the baseline question asked should be "is it illegal to kill someone" and "is it illegal to molest someone" and not "is it illegal to carry a knife, pointing it outward then tis guy bumps into me and die" or "is it illegal to run around with hand outstretched and then bumping into girls private part "

eagle

7 Aug 08, 14:27

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

I have written something different for MOM. Take note the previous letter is for IRAS. Did u read the letter I send to MOM ? No. So how can u comment on it?

Tat is very strange. I am asking MY enquiry. They answered MY enquiry. I insist I make a right description of MY enquiry. Who r u to insist it is not ?

It's ok. I'm not going to waste anymore time to convince you in anything.

You are just hopeless.

If you like to take intelligence levels to justify things (especially when you take out Einstein), take out your certs to prove to me that you are more intelligent than me to say that you are more correct than me.

stupidissmart

7 Aug 08, 14:34

It's ok. I'm not going to waste anymore time to convince you in anything.

You are just hopeless.

If you like to take intelligence levels to justify things (especially when you take out Einstein), take out your certs to prove to me that you are more intelligent than me to say that you are more correct than me.

Well u can always compare with Einstein since he is the one tat stated the above statement which u claim is out of context.

U wanna show me your "Dean's list" and first class honor cert ? Dean list ? Big f$ck ya ? I am sorry man just because u r in dean's list doesn't means u must be right.

eagle

7 Aug 08, 14:36

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

Well u can always compare with Einstein since he is the one tat stated the above statement which u claim is out of context.

U wanna show me your "Dean's list" and first class honor cert ? Dean list ? Big f$ck ya ? I am sorry man just because u r in dean's list doesn't means u must be right.

Well, you are the one who has implied to me when you question me "who I am to comment on Einstein's english" that because Einstein said so, it must be correct.

Why are you consistently stepping on your own toes?

If you can't take out any certs to prove anything, I will conclude, in your logic, that you did not properly portrayed in your letters what is being discussed here.

eagle

7 Aug 08, 14:41

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

I am saying Gov officials and Einstein. R u the one stepping on your own toes ?

You justified that your language must be correct because "They r made by the most intelligent person in the world". You took their intelligence level to compare with me, which I did not deny that he's indeed more intelligent.

Yes, you include gov officials too, because they said it too.

Now we are discussing whether you have properly portrayed the discussion to IRAS; only you and I are discussing. No gov officials are around to see the discussion. What they know is from what you have emailed them. Hence your word in bold doesn't hold.

Same thing, if you still cannot take out any certs to prove anything, I will conclude, in your logic, that you did not properly portrayed in your letters what is being discussed here.

stupidissmart

7 Aug 08, 14:47

You justified that your language must be correct because "They r made by the most intelligent person in the world". You took their intelligence level to compare with me, which I did not deny that he's indeed more intelligent.

Yes, you include gov officials too, because they said it too.

Then ? Wat is wrong with wat I had said ? It is true isn't it ? Did I say since he is the most intelligent fellow, he must always be right ?

Now we are discussing whether you have properly portrayed the discussion to IRAS; only you and I are discussing. No gov officials are around to see the discussion. What they know is from what you have emailed them. Hence your word in bold doesn't hold.

And wat is your problem with it ? Only on the phrase "do not do anything" to "do nothing" and tat make u able to conclude it does not protray the discussion ? The gov officials use the phrase "do nto do anything" and tat is the crux of the discussion. Why suddenly u talk in another tangent and say they r not around to see it ?

Same thing, if you still cannot take out any certs to prove anything, I will conclude, in your logic, that you did not properly portrayed in your letters what is being discussed here.

Wat logic ? U r putting words into my mouth which i never claim. If u think qualification is everything, then LKY is always right since his qualification is almost unbeatable in his times.