Is the Husband being discriminated against... Family Court?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
First of all... do understand that the family court's purpose is not to determine who is in the fault or the bigger culprit and to award damages. The purpose of the family court is NOT to punish.
oh yeah, many of my aunties went to high court to take their wedding photos, i saw it in their albums, why all these stupid guys alway think court is a place for punishment??? it is actually a place where justice prevail one way or the other. That is why i said last time, sg guys got some weird brainy problem -
Originally posted by kilfer:
http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20090411-134710.html
Half-blind man nearly lost everything to China bride
Sat, Apr 11, 2009
First, she threatened to get the police to arrest him if he refused to marry her. When he finally relented, she made him sign a document willing his home and all his assets to her.Mr Liang, 62, who is blind in one eye, told a Shin Min Daily News reporter that he first met the China woman at a coffee shop near his home in 2004. His wife had passed away ten years earlier in 1994.
He said that she came up to him and introduced herself as a beautician from China and said that she wanted to be his friend.
The woman, who is 11 years younger than Mr Liang, told him that she was a divorcee, and that her ex-husband and daughter are in China.Mr Liang said that the woman was very nice to him when they first met. However, things took a drastic change three months later.
"She told me that she wanted me to marry her. Should I refuse, she would report me to the police, accusing me of treating her badly and cheating her of her feelings."
As he had no knowledge about the penal code, Mr Liang took the China woman's threats for real and agreed to the marriage. He also listened to her instructions, asking him to keep his children in the dark about the nuptials.
"It was only at the Registry of Marriages did I realize that we needed two witnesses." Mr Liang told Shin Min, "I called my daughter, telling her I needed her as my witness, but she refused."
In the end, Mr Liang managed to get a male relative and a friend of the China woman's to witness their marriage registration.
It was only months later that Mr Liang's children learned of their father's marriage.
Despite acceding to her request, Mr Liang found that married life was no better. His new wife refused to work, and constantly asked him for money.
When his salary as a cleaner failed to satisfy his wife's needs, Mr Liang found himself asking his daughter for money.
The former cleaner also blamed his new wife for his partial loss of sight. Mr Liang said that he was suffering from glaucoma and cataracts, but his condition was in check as his daughter would take him to the doctor regularly.
When he remarried, his China wife assumed the responsibility, but failed to bring Mr Liang for treatment after the first time. By 2008, Mr Liang lost all sight in his right eye and was unable to work.
According to a doctor's report, Mr Liang's loss of sight was attributed to the neglect of his condition.
In early 2007, Mr Liang's new wife forced him to sign a document written in English. When Mr Liang indicated that he did not understand its contents, she refused to translate it for him.
When he brought it to a neighbour, Mr Liang was horrified to learn that it was an agreement stating that he had willed his $300,000 three-room flat as well as his CPF and bank savings to her.
However, as Mr Liang's children were aware of the agreement, the China woman did not benefit from it during the divorce proceedings.
haha, i have seen this kind of story almost every week...stupid cockeye old man...see PRC boobs only jaws dropped. And stupid old man go choose a old auntie PRC, there are many in their 20s and early 30s waitin lor.Well, he is one lucky guy, most would have parted all their saving by now, and in the end, blame the govt for not helping the poor...shit old tiko lau ah pek.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Note the article mentioned... the China wife did NOT benefit from the divorce. What other protection are you expecting from this case ? You want the china woman to go to jail or pay damages ?
How many cases of domestic violence do you know whereby the MAN who abuses his wife goes to jail or pay damages to his wife ?
The family court is NOT a criminal court. A family court cannot send a person to jail.
Please educate yourself about the different types of court houses.
i'm amused at your selective interpretation of the posted news article. i wonder what will your frens/relatives/colleagues/kids think if they know that you made this kind of comments. equally amused? or sympathetic to the new lows that you have reached in life?
i'll just entertain you for my own fun, laughter and happiness.
1) "the China wife did NOT benefit from the divorce"
- her evil plans did not succeed, coz it was stopped in time by the old man's family. you conveniently left out how she benefited financially during the marriage... let me refresh your memory..."Despite acceding to her request, Mr Liang found that married life was no better. His new wife refused to work, and constantly asked him for money.
When his salary as a cleaner failed to satisfy his wife's needs, Mr Liang found himself asking his daughter for money."
2) "What other protection are you expecting from this case ? You want the china woman to go to jail or pay damages ?"
- assuming the article is true and she's the care giver for the sick old man, then i would feel that she owes a "duty of care" to the old man, legally and ethically. her negligence caused the old man to lose his eyes => medical damage occurred.3) How many cases of domestic violence do you know whereby the MAN who abuses his wife goes to jail or pay damages to his wife ?
- and ur point is?anyway from http://app.mcys.gov.sg/web/corp_speech_story.asp?szMod=corp&szSubMod=speech&qid=2722
"Spousal violence remains the most widespread form of family violence. In 2005, 60.4% of the applications were made by wives while 10.5% were made by husbands. Ex-spouses accounted for 6.1% of the applications, while the remaining 23% of the applicants were siblings or parents of perpetrators. The numbers tell us the hard truth that more work to prevent and stop violence in families still needs to be done."
4) The family court is NOT a criminal court. A family court cannot send a person to jail. Please educate yourself about the different types of court houses.
- the news article didn't mentioned anything abt criminal/family courts, and neither did i... would u like to educate me on basis for this comment?ok, anything else that i did not cover?
-
Originally posted by kilfer:
- her evil plans did not succeed, coz it was stopped in time by the old man's family. you conveniently left out how she benefited financially during the marriage... let me refresh your memory...
Old man's family hor, not the old man, actually the old man still want to continue and offer her more and more...if not for the family rite, and also if I am not wrong, the old man's childrens is fed up with their daddy action, if not why they dun wan to be his witness at ROM.Now, let me ask you, is it the old man fault or the PRC woman fault? Singapore men is suppose to be smart and cleverer rite, then why fall for PRC gals??? these men are all sex maniacs, in desparate they give everything for it, why not spend his saving go for spa, massage by Jap gals, short time at geyland with different young gals, grooming by stevenson or 101, why can easily be con by a 52 yo aunty??? Siao liao.
-
Originally posted by kilfer:
i'm amused at your selective interpretation of the posted news article. i wonder what will your frens/relatives/colleagues/kids think if they know that you made this kind of comments. equally amused? or sympathetic to the new lows that you have reached in life?
i'll just entertain you for my own fun, laughter and happiness.
1) "the China wife did NOT benefit from the divorce"
- her evil plans did not succeed, coz it was stopped in time by the old man's family. you conveniently left out how she benefited financially during the marriage... let me refresh your memory..."Despite acceding to her request, Mr Liang found that married life was no better. His new wife refused to work, and constantly asked him for money.
When his salary as a cleaner failed to satisfy his wife's needs, Mr Liang found himself asking his daughter for money."
2) "What other protection are you expecting from this case ? You want the china woman to go to jail or pay damages ?"
- assuming the article is true and she's the care giver for the sick old man, then i would feel that she owes a "duty of care" to the old man, legally and ethically. her negligence caused the old man to lose his eyes => medical damage occurred.3) How many cases of domestic violence do you know whereby the MAN who abuses his wife goes to jail or pay damages to his wife ?
- and ur point is?anyway from http://app.mcys.gov.sg/web/corp_speech_story.asp?szMod=corp&szSubMod=speech&qid=2722
"Spousal violence remains the most widespread form of family violence. In 2005, 60.4% of the applications were made by wives while 10.5% were made by husbands. Ex-spouses accounted for 6.1% of the applications, while the remaining 23% of the applicants were siblings or parents of perpetrators. The numbers tell us the hard truth that more work to prevent and stop violence in families still needs to be done."
4) The family court is NOT a criminal court. A family court cannot send a person to jail. Please educate yourself about the different types of court houses.
- the news article didn't mentioned anything abt criminal/family courts, and neither did i... would u like to educate me on basis for this comment?ok, anything else that i did not cover?
Oh my god... Kilfer... I'm starting to believe you are like in Secondary school ?
That old man MARRIED the china woman.. in other words.. she is his LEGAL wife.
Geesh.. you mean it's wrong for a wife to spend her husband's money ? Does your mother spends the money your dad brings home ????? Or are you just discriminating that woman because she is from CHINA ?
It would have been different if she was NOT married to that tiko old man.
Angel is correct.. that man just thought he can marry a younger woman.. to get free fark and free aid during convalescence. He wouldn't be in such a bind if he had gone to Geylang.
Medical damage ?? HAHAHAHAHAHH... you think the wife is a nurse or a doctor ? Please hor...you're so funny. Ignorance is such a blissful state for ya.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Oh my god... Kilfer... I'm starting to believe you are like in Secondary school ?
That old man MARRIED the china woman.. in other words.. she is his LEGAL wife.
Geesh.. you mean it's wrong for a wife to spend her husband's money ? Does your mother spends the money your dad brings home ????? Or are you just discriminating that woman because she is from CHINA ?
It would have been different if she was NOT married to that tiko old man.
Angel is correct.. that man just thought he can marry a younger woman.. to get free fark and free aid during convalescence. He wouldn't be in such a bind if he had gone to Geylang.
Medical damage ?? HAHAHAHAHAHH... you think the wife is a nurse or a doctor ? Please hor...you're so funny. Ignorance is such a blissful state for ya.
well, i think it's fairly obvious u're just being unreasonable. and that's the point i want to bring across.
-
Originally posted by kilfer:
well, i think it's fairly obvious u're just being unreasonable. and that's the point i want to bring across.
My dear Kilfer, I understand the agony some men goes through.. hoping to get a cheap fix and end up paying for more than they signed up for.
But you guys really need to get your acts together in order to effect changes or improvements.
So far.. the discussion goes all over the place.
Ok . I hear ya, complaining how unfair the charter is to men.. and men do get abused.. blah blah blah.. but I have asked so many times... what kind of solid proposal do you have in mind ?
OK so you want the women to pay for abuse on their men. But does that also means we make the men pay if it's their fault ? Like strip them of every thing they own and throw them in jail too ? Look. You guys can't have it one way and not the other.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
My dear Kilfer, I understand the agony some men goes through.. hoping to get a cheap fix and end up paying for more than they signed up for.
But you guys really need to get your acts together in order to effect changes or improvements.
So far.. the discussion goes all over the place.
Ok . I hear ya, complaining how unfair the charter is to men.. and men do get abused.. blah blah blah.. but I have asked so many times... what kind of solid proposal do you have in mind ?
OK so you want the women to pay for abuse on their men. But does that also means we make the men pay if it's their fault ? Like strip them of every thing they own and throw them in jail too ? Look. You guys can't have it one way and not the other.
i dun think my discussion with you is all over the place. I answered every one of your questions point by point, didn't I?
Singapore law currently has specific provisions for women in the form of the women's charter. we are only asking for the law be gender-neutral, and to treat every person equally... not "Look. You guys can't have it one way and not the other."
btw, I like the way you twist the story to attempt to present yourself in a better way when I expose you for being unreasonable. just out of curiosity, do you play a lot of politics in the office?
-
Originally posted by kilfer:
i dun think my discussion with you is all over the place. I answered every one of your questions point by point, didn't I?
Singapore law currently has specific provisions for women in the form of the women's charter. we are only asking for the law be gender-neutral, and to treat every person equally... not "Look. You guys can't have it one way and not the other."
btw, I like the way you twist the story to attempt to present yourself in a better way when I expose you for being unreasonable. just out of curiosity, do you play a lot of politics in the office?
Gender neutral ?. Like the no fault divorce in USA ? Like everyone gets half of everything no questions ask ? Like ... say... enforceable through wage garnishes and equal custody time ? Are you sure that's what you guys want ?
Dude.. read the postings.. I'm not talking about just you.
And twist the story ? Pardon moi, if you havn't noticed.. the blame game wasn't started by me.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
oh yeah, many of my aunties went to high court to take their wedding photos, i saw it in their albums, why all these stupid guys alway think court is a place for punishment??? it is actually a place where justice prevail one way or the other. That is why i said last time, sg guys got some weird brainy problemI hear ya sista.
Sg men is got weird thinking.... they want to chop the women up in million pieces.. and yet they cannot live without us.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Gender neutral ?. Like the no fault divorce in USA ? Like everyone gets half of everything no questions ask ? Like ... say... enforceable through wage garnishes and equal custody time ? Are you sure that's what you guys want ?
Dude.. read the postings.. I'm not talking about just you.
And twist the story ? Pardon moi, if you havn't noticed.. the blame game wasn't started by me.
1) Gender neutral ?. Like the no fault divorce in USA ? Like everyone gets half of everything no questions ask ? Like ... say... enforceable through wage garnishes and equal custody time ? Are you sure that's what you guys want ?
- Yes, we guys want to be treated equally on the basis of justice and equality. A set of gender neutral law should judge everyone equally. For example, if a divorce involves a home-maker husband and a wage-earning wife, then the husband should be able to get the ex-wife to compensate him for his contributions as a home-maker. Fair?2) Dude.. read the postings.. I'm not talking about just you.
- Ok, let's go back to the post in question, which is your post dated 12 Apr 09, 11.45am quoted here as follows:My dear Kilfer, I understand the agony some men goes through.. hoping to get a cheap fix and end up paying for more than they signed up for.
But you guys really need to get your acts together in order to effect changes or improvements.
So far.. the discussion goes all over the place.
Ok . I hear ya, complaining how unfair the charter is to men.. and men do get abused.. blah blah blah.. but I have asked so many times... what kind of solid proposal do you have in mind ?
OK so you want the women to pay for abuse on their men. But does that also means we make the men pay if it's their fault ? Like strip them of every thing they own and throw them in jail too ? Look. You guys can't have it one way and not the other.
So you quoted my comments in the beginning of that post. Paragraphs 1,2,4,5 are addressed to me. Paragraph 3 which is right in the middle of that post is "So far.. the discussion goes all over the place.". And you're saying "Dude.. read the postings.. I'm not talking about just you". So you are including me and other unspecified people in that "not talking about just you" statement, correct? If so, that will mean that you are accusing me of making the discussion go all over the place, which I am not.
3) And twist the story ?
- Let me tell you what I think about your actions... I took the effort to list down your points and answer each of them systematically... but you know you're being unreasonable... and you know you are losing the debate... so you're just trying to muddy the water, and distract everyone's attention by adding in unnecessary insults instead of answering the points that I have raised.So I put it across to you again that yes, I think you are twisting the story to distract everyone. I joined this thread with the good intentions voicing my views that both parties in a marriage are equally mature adults and should therefore share equal responsibility for the success or failure of the marriage. However, you are twisting what I said for your own agenda.
4) Pardon moi, if you havn't noticed.. the blame game wasn't started by me.
- first, I state my view that I am not involved in any blame game. now the question is... are you involved in the blame game? -
Originally posted by kilfer:
1) Gender neutral ?. Like the no fault divorce in USA ? Like everyone gets half of everything no questions ask ? Like ... say... enforceable through wage garnishes and equal custody time ? Are you sure that's what you guys want ?
- Yes, we guys want to be treated equally on the basis of justice and equality. A set of gender neutral law should judge everyone equally. For example, if a divorce involves a home-maker husband and a wage-earning wife, then the husband should be able to get the ex-wife to compensate him for his contributions as a home-maker. Fair?2) Dude.. read the postings.. I'm not talking about just you.
- Ok, let's go back to the post in question, which is your post dated 12 Apr 09, 11.45am quoted here as follows:So you quoted my comments in the beginning of that post. Paragraphs 1,2,4,5 are addressed to me. Paragraph 3 which is right in the middle of that post is "So far.. the discussion goes all over the place.". And you're saying "Dude.. read the postings.. I'm not talking about just you". So you are including me and other unspecified people in that "not talking about just you" statement, correct? If so, that will mean that you are accusing me of making the discussion go all over the place, which I am not.
3) And twist the story ?
- Let me tell you what I think about your actions... I took the effort to list down your points and answer each of them systematically... but you know you're being unreasonable... and you know you are losing the debate... so you're just trying to muddy the water, and distract everyone's attention by adding in unnecessary insults instead of answering the points that I have raised.So I put it across to you again that yes, I think you are twisting the story to distract everyone. I joined this thread with the good intentions voicing my views that both parties in a marriage are equally mature adults and should therefore share equal responsibility for the success or failure of the marriage. However, you are twisting what I said for your own agenda.
4) Pardon moi, if you havn't noticed.. the blame game wasn't started by me.
- first, I state my view that I am not involved in any blame game. now the question is... are you involved in the blame game?
before thou shalt hear ya....let me ask u a question, are you a gay or a guy?? -
Originally posted by jojobeach:
I hear ya sista.
Sg men is got weird thinking.... they want to chop the women up in million pieces.. and yet they cannot live without us.
ya, behind every successful sg man, is a successful and smart sg woman. And if that particular sg man is not successful, most like behind him is a PRC gals or another man, so to speak. -
Originally posted by angel7030:
before thou shalt hear ya....let me ask u a question, are you a gay or a guy??
does it matter?
-
Originally posted by kilfer:
does it matter?
sure, true guy dun argue so much with gals, unlike you, keep argueing, sound very sissy to me. You under can stand?..i mean u understand? -
Originally posted by kilfer:
1) Gender neutral ?. Like the no fault divorce in USA ? Like everyone gets half of everything no questions ask ? Like ... say... enforceable through wage garnishes and equal custody time ? Are you sure that's what you guys want ?
- Yes, we guys want to be treated equally on the basis of justice and equality. A set of gender neutral law should judge everyone equally. For example, if a divorce involves a home-maker husband and a wage-earning wife, then the husband should be able to get the ex-wife to compensate him for his contributions as a home-maker. Fair?2) Dude.. read the postings.. I'm not talking about just you.
- Ok, let's go back to the post in question, which is your post dated 12 Apr 09, 11.45am quoted here as follows:So you quoted my comments in the beginning of that post. Paragraphs 1,2,4,5 are addressed to me. Paragraph 3 which is right in the middle of that post is "So far.. the discussion goes all over the place.". And you're saying "Dude.. read the postings.. I'm not talking about just you". So you are including me and other unspecified people in that "not talking about just you" statement, correct? If so, that will mean that you are accusing me of making the discussion go all over the place, which I am not.
3) And twist the story ?
- Let me tell you what I think about your actions... I took the effort to list down your points and answer each of them systematically... but you know you're being unreasonable... and you know you are losing the debate... so you're just trying to muddy the water, and distract everyone's attention by adding in unnecessary insults instead of answering the points that I have raised.So I put it across to you again that yes, I think you are twisting the story to distract everyone. I joined this thread with the good intentions voicing my views that both parties in a marriage are equally mature adults and should therefore share equal responsibility for the success or failure of the marriage. However, you are twisting what I said for your own agenda.
4) Pardon moi, if you havn't noticed.. the blame game wasn't started by me.
- first, I state my view that I am not involved in any blame game. now the question is... are you involved in the blame game?I agree, if the guy is thy Mr.Mom. He should be treated like a traditional mom. But are the males willing to do that ? If they do, I gladly welcome such changes.
It be not insults.. but it is indeed very exhaustive to have ta explain to a ignorant student about the workings of real life. I rather you go find out about the court workings first.. before ye come here and keep arguing with negligence. My arguments had always been based on the assumptions that you guys knows what a family court is and what it does.
And FYI, when I said past postings... I meant from the BEGINNING of this THREAD, not just my first posting here.
OK dude... you are digressing. So can we like get back to the topic ?
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
sure, true guy dun argue so much with gals, unlike you, keep argueing, sound very sissy to me. You under can stand?..i mean u understand?erm... where you get that logic from? lol... of course i don't like to argue with girls, normally will let them win under normal circumstances. Unless if it's on big issue or something that's really serious or need special attention.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
I agree, if the guy is thy Mr.Mom. He should be treated like a traditional mom. But are the males willing to do that ? If they do, I gladly welcome such changes.
It be not insults.. but it is indeed very exhaustive to have ta explain to a ignorant student about the workings of real life. I rather you go find out about the court workings first.. before ye come here and keep arguing with negligence. My arguments had always been based on the assumptions that you guys knows what a family court is and what it does.
And FYI, when I said past postings... I meant from the BEGINNING of this THREAD, not just my first posting here.
OK dude... you are digressing. So can we like get back to the topic ?
1. "I agree, if the guy is thy Mr.Mom. He should be treated like a traditional mom. But are the males willing to do that ? If they do, I gladly welcome such changes."
- Let me repeat the answer again. Yes, we want the law to treat everyone equally, regardless of gender. It is interesting that you quote my post where I stated "Yes, we guys want to be treated equally on the basis of justice and equality", and then you ask me again "But are the males willing to do that?".You stated "If they do, I gladly welcome such changes". So you agree that the law should treat everyone equally?
2. "It be not insults.. but it is indeed very exhaustive to have ta explain to a ignorant student about the workings of real life."
- From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance, ignorant has 2 possible meanings:
a) lacks knowledge and is unaware of various issues in general.
b) the second use is as an imprecise personal insult.If you're using ignorant as in (a), please point out precisely where I am "a ignorant student about the workings of real life".
If you're using ignorant as in (b), then you meant it as a personal insult to me.
3. "I rather you go find out about the court workings first.. before ye come here and keep arguing with negligence. My arguments had always been based on the assumptions that you guys knows what a family court is and what it does."
- Would you enlighten us on your credentials for being an expert on "what a family court is and what it does"?And what is the basis that we do not know how a family court works. Please state the relevant postings.
4. "And FYI, when I said past postings... I meant from the BEGINNING of this THREAD, not just my first posting here."
- If you feel that I have misinterpret your posts or I am wrong on certain posts, please kindly point out which exact posts. In fact, if you feel certain response do not answer your queries, you should have pointed it out there and then.I don't consider redirecting people to 11 pages of past postings, a long time after the event occurred, as being very specific or helpful to any discussion.
5. OK dude... you are digressing. So can we like get back to the topic ?
- Kindly state where am I digressing. I'll gladly go back to re-discuss that point(s), so that we'll be back on track.If you can't provide the point(s), then you are attempting to muddy the discussion with blanket statements that have no basis, and to create the false impression that I am making "the discussion goes all over the place" as well as "digressing".
Please answer the questions in my post dated 12 Apr 09, 2.36pm,
- You have accused me of making the discussion go all over the place. Please cite examples.
- You said "Pardon moi, if you havn't noticed.. the blame game wasn't started by me."
So, let me state my views again... I am not involved in any blame game. Do you admit that you are involved in the blame game? -
leilan: "erm - where you get that logic from?" : from her heart instead of her head as gals generally do.
angel: "you under can stand? .... i mean u understand?": we under stand - hook, line & sinker & ever ready to throw the line ok?
-
Originally posted by kilfer:
1. "I agree, if the guy is thy Mr.Mom. He should be treated like a traditional mom. But are the males willing to do that ? If they do, I gladly welcome such changes."
- Let me repeat the answer again. Yes, we want the law to treat everyone equally, regardless of gender. It is interesting that you quote my post where I stated "Yes, we guys want to be treated equally on the basis of justice and equality", and then you ask me again "But are the males willing to do that?".You stated "If they do, I gladly welcome such changes". So you agree that the law should treat everyone equally?
2. "It be not insults.. but it is indeed very exhaustive to have ta explain to a ignorant student about the workings of real life."
- From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance, ignorant has 2 possible meanings:
a) lacks knowledge and is unaware of various issues in general.
b) the second use is as an imprecise personal insult.If you're using ignorant as in (a), please point out precisely where I am "a ignorant student about the workings of real life".
If you're using ignorant as in (b), then you meant it as a personal insult to me.
3. "I rather you go find out about the court workings first.. before ye come here and keep arguing with negligence. My arguments had always been based on the assumptions that you guys knows what a family court is and what it does."
- Would you enlighten us on your credentials for being an expert on "what a family court is and what it does"?And what is the basis that we do not know how a family court works. Please state the relevant postings.
4. "And FYI, when I said past postings... I meant from the BEGINNING of this THREAD, not just my first posting here."
- If you feel that I have misinterpret your posts or I am wrong on certain posts, please kindly point out which exact posts. In fact, if you feel certain response do not answer your queries, you should have pointed it out there and then.I don't consider redirecting people to 11 pages of past postings, a long time after the event occurred, as being very specific or helpful to any discussion.
5. OK dude... you are digressing. So can we like get back to the topic ?
- Kindly state where am I digressing. I'll gladly go back to re-discuss that point(s), so that we'll be back on track.If you can't provide the point(s), then you are attempting to muddy the discussion with blanket statements that have no basis, and to create the false impression that I am making "the discussion goes all over the place" as well as "digressing".
Please answer the questions in my post dated 12 Apr 09, 2.36pm,
- You have accused me of making the discussion go all over the place. Please cite examples.
- You said "Pardon moi, if you havn't noticed.. the blame game wasn't started by me."
So, let me state my views again... I am not involved in any blame game. Do you admit that you are involved in the blame game?
Lookie dude.. if you choose to take discussions so personally, I can't help you.Doesn't take a laywer or a judge to understand some basic legal issues to that affects our society.
I am assuming you are secondary level .. simply because you don't seem to have a clue about the legal system at all.
I believe in Poly or Uni level they woulda taught you some legal 101.
Dude.. if you insist that I am taking it personal with you.. that's just too bad.
Then I suppose there is really no use furthering this discussion since you are so resistant on doing more ground work on your own.
Thank you.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Lookie dude.. if you choose to take discussions so personally, I can't help you.Doesn't take a laywer or a judge to understand some basic legal issues to that affects our society.
I am assuming you are secondary level .. simply because you don't seem to have a clue about the legal system at all.
I believe in Poly or Uni level they woulda taught you some legal 101.
Dude.. if you insist that I am taking it personal with you.. that's just too bad.
Then I suppose there is really no use furthering this discussion since you are so resistant on doing more ground work on your own.
Thank you.
Goodbye
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Lookie dude.. if you choose to take discussions so personally, I can't help you.Doesn't take a laywer or a judge to understand some basic legal issues to that affects our society.
I am assuming you are secondary level .. simply because you don't seem to have a clue about the legal system at all.
I believe in Poly or Uni level they woulda taught you some legal 101.
Dude.. if you insist that I am taking it personal with you.. that's just too bad.
Then I suppose there is really no use furthering this discussion since you are so resistant on doing more ground work on your own.
Thank you.
don't worry, i'm not taking this personally. and you don't take this personally hor.
I like debates once in a while.
-
The roof.. the roof.. the roof is on fire. We dont need no water let the mother *teet toot* burn.. burn mother *teet toot* burn..
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
The roof.. the roof.. the roof is on fire. We dont need no water let the mother *teet toot* burn.. burn mother *teet toot* burn..
Chill, dude...I've sent you a pm.
-
wah ?
nani ?
lol..