DZJ 0 #26 October 3, 2007 The BBC can probably explain better than I can: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7013943.stm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #27 October 3, 2007 QuoteQuoteErm, BULLSHIT. Burma's biggest trading partners are its neighbours, principally China. Do try and get your facts straight. cut him some slack - at least he likes cowboys Terrorists, Communists, and Anarchists.Quote There, now it is a true statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #28 October 3, 2007 QuoteThe BBC can probably explain better than I can: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7013943.stm Thanks. Weird concept though. It seems like it's a decision as to whether or not to use a stage name based on your mood ring. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ErricoMalatesta 0 #29 October 3, 2007 QuoteErm, BULLSHIT. Burma's biggest trading partners are its neighbours, principally China. Do try and get your facts straight. Ok if you want to be a cry baby and play semantics I will reword it a couple of times Britain are the #1 western trading partner OR Britain are a close second to China and funnel a lot of money directly to the Burmese Junta Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ErricoMalatesta 0 #30 October 3, 2007 QuoteQuoteErm, BULLSHIT. Burma's biggest trading partners are its neighbours, principally China. Do try and get your facts straight. cut him some slack - at least he likes cowboys I'm pretty sure the cowboy didn't invent the short back and sides or the mustache but once again for the speakers corner well done U.S education system QuoteQuoteQuoteErm, BULLSHIT. Burma's biggest trading partners are its neighbours, principally China. Do try and get your facts straight. cut him some slack - at least he likes cowboys Terrorists, Communists, and Anarchists.Quote There, now it is a true statement. I have never made mention that I like terrorists or communists so that is only a partially true statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DZJ 0 #31 October 3, 2007 QuoteQuoteErm, BULLSHIT. Burma's biggest trading partners are its neighbours, principally China. Do try and get your facts straight. Ok if you want to be a cry baby and play semantics I will reword it a couple of times Britain are the #1 western trading partner OR Britain are a close second to China and funnel a lot of money directly to the Burmese JuntaHilarious. You come out with a statement that is demonstrably false and when called on it you bluff about semantics. And anyway, your claims still don't stand up. The claim that Britain is second behind China is based on dubious, non-independently verified figures that come from the Burmese regime. Further, Britain's investment is less significant than that of the US's Chevron, or France's Total. British investment in Burma is negligible (sub £500k) according to the FCO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ErricoMalatesta 0 #32 October 3, 2007 Quote Hilarious. You come out with a statement that is demonstrably false and when called on it you bluff about semantics. The internet is not a research essay you will find I often make blanket statements that are slightly stretched. "The US have the worst trade union laws in the western hemisphere" "You can't say that! they really have the third worst behind Syria and some other place" "...semantics" Quote And anyway, your claims still don't stand up. The claim that Britain is second behind China is based on dubious, non-independently verified figures that come from the Burmese regime. Go down the dirty list of some of the Burma watch organizations. Press ctrl-f, type in UK, and then prepare to hit 'next' about five million times ( that isn't an exact figure either) Quote Further, Britain's investment is less significant than that of the US's Chevron, or France's Total. British investment in Burma is negligible (sub £500k) according to the FCO. Yeah there are other companies from other places too, so are we arguing over semantics? Are you a cranky pom because I said 1st/2nd when really I should say 'large contribution/er' or something less flamboyant than the original statement? Ok lets pretend this is a research paper... "A lot of British companies are fucking over the Myanmar people" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DZJ 0 #33 October 3, 2007 You said Britain was the biggest investor in Burma, and you were wrong. You said Britain was the biggest western investor in Burma, and you were wrong again. Forgive me for having an interest in facts. QuoteGo down the dirty list of some of the Burma watch organizations. Press ctrl-f, type in UK, and then prepare to hit 'next' about five million times ( that isn't an exact figure either) And like I said, those numbers are unverified and sourced from the regime itself. QuoteYeah there are other companies from other places too, so are we arguing over semantics?Don't quite see where your obsession with semantics comes from - so far I've been dealing in facts. Quote"A lot of British companies are fucking over the Myanmar people" And yet British investment in Burma is less than half a million pounds a year... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites christelsabine 1 #34 October 3, 2007 Quote Quote Erm, BULLSHIT. Burma's biggest trading partners are its neighbours, principally China. Do try and get your facts straight. Ok if you want to be a cry baby and play semantics I will reword it a couple of times Britain are the #1 western trading partner OR Britain are a close second to China and funnel a lot of money directly to the Burmese Junta JFIY: Germany is biggest importer of products made in Burma/Myanmar. And so far, I do not think that's bad. I think much more, you're not that well informed dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ErricoMalatesta 0 #35 October 4, 2007 QuoteYou said Britain was the biggest western investor in Burma, and you were wrong again. Because NGOs aren't credible apparently... QuoteJFIY: Germany is biggest importer of products made in Burma/Myanmar. And so far, I do not think that's bad. ...and I guess I can just switch Britain to Germany now and come correct... but apparently the German amongst us sees nothing wrong with that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DZJ 0 #36 October 4, 2007 QuoteBecause NGOs aren't credible apparently...No, because (repeating myself for the third time here) their figures are sourced from the regime itself and are unverified. Would you call the junta a credible source? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #37 October 13, 2007 Latest: Leaders of the resistance detained: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7042885.stm Monks disappeared: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1670876,00.html I'd like to see (but am not expecting it) all of the members of the UN Security Council support their envoy. Edited to add: link to some of the most extensive, graphic and brutal videos from Yangbon, courtesy of Al Jazeera English: Pt 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UqQaizM15Q Pt 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2goTVC5g3M&NR=1 VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
idrankwhat 0 #28 October 3, 2007 QuoteThe BBC can probably explain better than I can: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7013943.stm Thanks. Weird concept though. It seems like it's a decision as to whether or not to use a stage name based on your mood ring. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErricoMalatesta 0 #29 October 3, 2007 QuoteErm, BULLSHIT. Burma's biggest trading partners are its neighbours, principally China. Do try and get your facts straight. Ok if you want to be a cry baby and play semantics I will reword it a couple of times Britain are the #1 western trading partner OR Britain are a close second to China and funnel a lot of money directly to the Burmese Junta Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErricoMalatesta 0 #30 October 3, 2007 QuoteQuoteErm, BULLSHIT. Burma's biggest trading partners are its neighbours, principally China. Do try and get your facts straight. cut him some slack - at least he likes cowboys I'm pretty sure the cowboy didn't invent the short back and sides or the mustache but once again for the speakers corner well done U.S education system QuoteQuoteQuoteErm, BULLSHIT. Burma's biggest trading partners are its neighbours, principally China. Do try and get your facts straight. cut him some slack - at least he likes cowboys Terrorists, Communists, and Anarchists.Quote There, now it is a true statement. I have never made mention that I like terrorists or communists so that is only a partially true statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DZJ 0 #31 October 3, 2007 QuoteQuoteErm, BULLSHIT. Burma's biggest trading partners are its neighbours, principally China. Do try and get your facts straight. Ok if you want to be a cry baby and play semantics I will reword it a couple of times Britain are the #1 western trading partner OR Britain are a close second to China and funnel a lot of money directly to the Burmese JuntaHilarious. You come out with a statement that is demonstrably false and when called on it you bluff about semantics. And anyway, your claims still don't stand up. The claim that Britain is second behind China is based on dubious, non-independently verified figures that come from the Burmese regime. Further, Britain's investment is less significant than that of the US's Chevron, or France's Total. British investment in Burma is negligible (sub £500k) according to the FCO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ErricoMalatesta 0 #32 October 3, 2007 Quote Hilarious. You come out with a statement that is demonstrably false and when called on it you bluff about semantics. The internet is not a research essay you will find I often make blanket statements that are slightly stretched. "The US have the worst trade union laws in the western hemisphere" "You can't say that! they really have the third worst behind Syria and some other place" "...semantics" Quote And anyway, your claims still don't stand up. The claim that Britain is second behind China is based on dubious, non-independently verified figures that come from the Burmese regime. Go down the dirty list of some of the Burma watch organizations. Press ctrl-f, type in UK, and then prepare to hit 'next' about five million times ( that isn't an exact figure either) Quote Further, Britain's investment is less significant than that of the US's Chevron, or France's Total. British investment in Burma is negligible (sub £500k) according to the FCO. Yeah there are other companies from other places too, so are we arguing over semantics? Are you a cranky pom because I said 1st/2nd when really I should say 'large contribution/er' or something less flamboyant than the original statement? Ok lets pretend this is a research paper... "A lot of British companies are fucking over the Myanmar people" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DZJ 0 #33 October 3, 2007 You said Britain was the biggest investor in Burma, and you were wrong. You said Britain was the biggest western investor in Burma, and you were wrong again. Forgive me for having an interest in facts. QuoteGo down the dirty list of some of the Burma watch organizations. Press ctrl-f, type in UK, and then prepare to hit 'next' about five million times ( that isn't an exact figure either) And like I said, those numbers are unverified and sourced from the regime itself. QuoteYeah there are other companies from other places too, so are we arguing over semantics?Don't quite see where your obsession with semantics comes from - so far I've been dealing in facts. Quote"A lot of British companies are fucking over the Myanmar people" And yet British investment in Burma is less than half a million pounds a year... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites christelsabine 1 #34 October 3, 2007 Quote Quote Erm, BULLSHIT. Burma's biggest trading partners are its neighbours, principally China. Do try and get your facts straight. Ok if you want to be a cry baby and play semantics I will reword it a couple of times Britain are the #1 western trading partner OR Britain are a close second to China and funnel a lot of money directly to the Burmese Junta JFIY: Germany is biggest importer of products made in Burma/Myanmar. And so far, I do not think that's bad. I think much more, you're not that well informed dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ErricoMalatesta 0 #35 October 4, 2007 QuoteYou said Britain was the biggest western investor in Burma, and you were wrong again. Because NGOs aren't credible apparently... QuoteJFIY: Germany is biggest importer of products made in Burma/Myanmar. And so far, I do not think that's bad. ...and I guess I can just switch Britain to Germany now and come correct... but apparently the German amongst us sees nothing wrong with that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DZJ 0 #36 October 4, 2007 QuoteBecause NGOs aren't credible apparently...No, because (repeating myself for the third time here) their figures are sourced from the regime itself and are unverified. Would you call the junta a credible source? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #37 October 13, 2007 Latest: Leaders of the resistance detained: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7042885.stm Monks disappeared: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1670876,00.html I'd like to see (but am not expecting it) all of the members of the UN Security Council support their envoy. Edited to add: link to some of the most extensive, graphic and brutal videos from Yangbon, courtesy of Al Jazeera English: Pt 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UqQaizM15Q Pt 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2goTVC5g3M&NR=1 VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
DZJ 0 #31 October 3, 2007 QuoteQuoteErm, BULLSHIT. Burma's biggest trading partners are its neighbours, principally China. Do try and get your facts straight. Ok if you want to be a cry baby and play semantics I will reword it a couple of times Britain are the #1 western trading partner OR Britain are a close second to China and funnel a lot of money directly to the Burmese JuntaHilarious. You come out with a statement that is demonstrably false and when called on it you bluff about semantics. And anyway, your claims still don't stand up. The claim that Britain is second behind China is based on dubious, non-independently verified figures that come from the Burmese regime. Further, Britain's investment is less significant than that of the US's Chevron, or France's Total. British investment in Burma is negligible (sub £500k) according to the FCO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErricoMalatesta 0 #32 October 3, 2007 Quote Hilarious. You come out with a statement that is demonstrably false and when called on it you bluff about semantics. The internet is not a research essay you will find I often make blanket statements that are slightly stretched. "The US have the worst trade union laws in the western hemisphere" "You can't say that! they really have the third worst behind Syria and some other place" "...semantics" Quote And anyway, your claims still don't stand up. The claim that Britain is second behind China is based on dubious, non-independently verified figures that come from the Burmese regime. Go down the dirty list of some of the Burma watch organizations. Press ctrl-f, type in UK, and then prepare to hit 'next' about five million times ( that isn't an exact figure either) Quote Further, Britain's investment is less significant than that of the US's Chevron, or France's Total. British investment in Burma is negligible (sub £500k) according to the FCO. Yeah there are other companies from other places too, so are we arguing over semantics? Are you a cranky pom because I said 1st/2nd when really I should say 'large contribution/er' or something less flamboyant than the original statement? Ok lets pretend this is a research paper... "A lot of British companies are fucking over the Myanmar people" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #33 October 3, 2007 You said Britain was the biggest investor in Burma, and you were wrong. You said Britain was the biggest western investor in Burma, and you were wrong again. Forgive me for having an interest in facts. QuoteGo down the dirty list of some of the Burma watch organizations. Press ctrl-f, type in UK, and then prepare to hit 'next' about five million times ( that isn't an exact figure either) And like I said, those numbers are unverified and sourced from the regime itself. QuoteYeah there are other companies from other places too, so are we arguing over semantics?Don't quite see where your obsession with semantics comes from - so far I've been dealing in facts. Quote"A lot of British companies are fucking over the Myanmar people" And yet British investment in Burma is less than half a million pounds a year... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #34 October 3, 2007 Quote Quote Erm, BULLSHIT. Burma's biggest trading partners are its neighbours, principally China. Do try and get your facts straight. Ok if you want to be a cry baby and play semantics I will reword it a couple of times Britain are the #1 western trading partner OR Britain are a close second to China and funnel a lot of money directly to the Burmese Junta JFIY: Germany is biggest importer of products made in Burma/Myanmar. And so far, I do not think that's bad. I think much more, you're not that well informed dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErricoMalatesta 0 #35 October 4, 2007 QuoteYou said Britain was the biggest western investor in Burma, and you were wrong again. Because NGOs aren't credible apparently... QuoteJFIY: Germany is biggest importer of products made in Burma/Myanmar. And so far, I do not think that's bad. ...and I guess I can just switch Britain to Germany now and come correct... but apparently the German amongst us sees nothing wrong with that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #36 October 4, 2007 QuoteBecause NGOs aren't credible apparently...No, because (repeating myself for the third time here) their figures are sourced from the regime itself and are unverified. Would you call the junta a credible source? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #37 October 13, 2007 Latest: Leaders of the resistance detained: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7042885.stm Monks disappeared: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1670876,00.html I'd like to see (but am not expecting it) all of the members of the UN Security Council support their envoy. Edited to add: link to some of the most extensive, graphic and brutal videos from Yangbon, courtesy of Al Jazeera English: Pt 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UqQaizM15Q Pt 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2goTVC5g3M&NR=1 VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
