I think China is really going to do it...

[agent00f]

"Tibet seceded when the rest of china was in considerable turmoil & not exactly in a condition to do anything about it. The communists took it back after consolidating power."

There's something about this sentence that is beyond you, and it would be easier if you could help identify the reason. I tried guessing at it, like for example you don't know to compare circumstances in time, and since that didn't jolt anything it rather makes sense you don't know what that means.

====================================
See you are LYING again.

You never said anything about encyclopedia but wiki only. This is EXACTLY what you said, in your own words =

"Before going on about books, consider googling for the wiki page(s)"

See it? In black and white, wiki pages only, nothing else.. LIAR!!! Pants on fire.

Wiki's full name is wikipedia (look at the browser bar or on any of its page to verify), which a marginally educated person can figure is an encyclopedia that just happens to be online for easier access. The info contained is the same regardless, and the ease of access is for your benefit since visiting a library nevermind owning a physical set would be a stretch.

Took it back? Fine, then let Mongolia, Manchuria, Britain, Japan take it back. Fair is fair as I raised in the questions above. Let Vietnam and Korea take back their ancient land from china. The mods said your IP is from the US but your logic and debate skill are just like a foolish clueless wumao from commie china. Same logic (take back Tibet because <insert lies>) but would not dare to answer about Japan takes china back. How sad and impotent, just like a chinese eunuch.

The sentence summarizes a series of events around the secession which a marginally educated person might similarly figure as directly related. Again, the only unresolved problem here is why you can't make the connection.

 

[piasabird]

If the USA declares war on China we can quit making debt payments. Of course computers may become hard to purchases.

 

[Svnla]

Wiki's full name is wikipedia (look at the browser bar or on any of its page to verify), which a marginally educated person can figure is an encyclopedia that just happens to be online for easier access. The info contained is the same regardless, and the ease of access is for your benefit since visiting a library nevermind owning a physical set would be a stretch.



The sentence summarizes a series of events around the secession which a marginally educated person might similarly figure as directly related. Again, the only unresolved problem here is why you can't make the connection.

Again, you are lying and trying so hard to dig yourself out of a deep hole of your own making.

a) WiIki = wikipedia = any idiot could edit and change almost anything on it. No amount of serious research needed.

b) Encyclopedia = from serious research and from well educated people such as Britannica. Only authorized people from the company can make change or edit it.

Wiki =! same league as any well known encyclopedia. Not even close.

You were calling for Wiki and now you double down on stupidity and try to claim wiki is the same as well know encyclopedias? Seriously, how stupid can you be?

Still nothing for my questions but more desperation grabbing for straws? Who is the moron now? LOL x 10000000000000.

Keep on being stupid and I will be here point them out and laughing. So. Easy.

 

[CFP]

I think a lot of people tend to overestimate China's capability. They put up a good front, but it's hollow. They have little capacity to project meaningful power past raising tariffs or posturing.

Maybe in 10 years it'll be different, but between now and then? Things will stay roughly the same, and the West will be accused of "meddling" in the "internal affairs" of China, as well as hurting the feelings of the Chinese people.

China has a lot of growing up to do before they can be considered a superpower. As I've said, they top out at regional power, which is still impressive for a country that's built on stilts above surging water.

 

[agent00f]

Again, you are lying and trying so hard to dig yourself out of a deep hole of your own making.

a) WiIki = wikipedia = any idiot could edit and change almost anything on it. No amount of serious research needed.

b) Encyclopedia = from serious research and from well educated people such as Britannica. Only authorized people from the company can make change or edit it.

Wiki =! same league as any well known encyclopedia. Not even close.

You were calling for Wiki and now you double down on stupidity and try to claim wiki is the same as well know encyclopedias? Seriously, how stupid can you be?

Still nothing for my questions but more desperation grabbing for straws? Who is the moron now? LOL x 10000000000000.

Keep on being stupid and I will be here point them out and laughing. So. Easy.

Individual claims on wiki are relatively well sourced as someone marginally educated can tell from the citations, more so than typical encyclopedias, and this is something anyone remotely familiar with knowledge should be aware of. It's evidently something you're not familiar with yet feel compelled to mouth off about regardless, not unlike this topic or any others in general.

 

[agent00f]

I think a lot of people tend to overestimate China's capability. They put up a good front, but it's hollow. They have little capacity to project meaningful power past raising tariffs or posturing.

Maybe in 10 years it'll be different, but between now and then? Things will stay roughly the same, and the West will be accused of "meddling" in the "internal affairs" of China, as well as hurting the feelings of the Chinese people.

China has a lot of growing up to do before they can be considered a superpower. As I've said, they top out at regional power, which is still impressive for a country that's built on stilts above surging water.

They have plenty of nukes, which automatically makes them a country the US or such can't mess with militarily.

The rest they seem to control pretty well through economic soft power, in many ways preferable to folks than the hard power stance the old school superpowers often take.

 

[Svnla]

Individual claims on wiki are relatively well sourced as someone marginally educated can tell from the citations, more so than typical encyclopedias, and this is something anyone remotely familiar with knowledge should be aware of. It's evidently something you're not familiar with yet feel compelled to mouth off about regardless, not unlike this topic or any others in general.

Oh really? Let see who is the one that is clueless yet mouthing off, shall we? Let see what well known entities such as Time, MIT, Harvard say about Wiki:

"To get a handle on exactly how bad Wikipedia’s problems are, I did a little experiment: I downloaded the complete revision history for 25,000 randomly selected articles–a total of 2.3 million edits–and looked at how many had warnings about quality at a given time. At present, 12% of the articles in this sample had some documented problem, such as lack of references or a “non-neutral point of view.”"

http://time.com/4180414/wikipedia-15th-anniversary/


"The volunteer workforce that built the project’s flagship, the English-language Wikipedia—and must defend it against vandalism, hoaxes, and manipulation—has shrunk by more than a third since 2007 and is still shrinking. "

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/

"The fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic research..."

http://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376

And yet you are claiming Wiki is as good as any well know encyclopedia and the invasion of Tibet by china is similar as the Union tried to keep the US as a whole and you have no freaking clue that Tibetans are not han chinese and on and on . And you are the one that are still unable to answer my simple questions above. Keep digging deeper and I will keep point out your foolishness and laugh at . LOL.

 

[agent00f]

This has become a curious case of why you believe a study over the assortment of odd entries in wiki is relevant to the articles about tibetan history under china. eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...d_administrative_rule_.281720.E2.80.931912.29. The specific article on the matter has something like 100 references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_under_Qing_rule.

Seems obvious you don't dispute the facts here, but still believe it's important to keep running your mouth about something.

> and you have no freaking clue that Tibetans are not han chinese and on and on .

I'm sure you believe this, sort of like some special ed kid who thinks they're the first to figure out 2+2=4.

> And you are the one that are still unable to answer my simple questions above. Keep digging deeper and I will keep point out your foolishness and laugh at . LOL.

Why would I keep answering questions posed by some tard who can't understand a simple sentence?

 

[Svnla]

This has become a curious case of why you believe a study over the assortment of odd entries in wiki is relevant to the articles about tibetan history under china. eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...d_administrative_rule_.281720.E2.80.931912.29. The specific article on the matter has something like 100 references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_under_Qing_rule.

Seems obvious you don't dispute the facts here, but still believe it's important to keep running your mouth about something.

> and you have no freaking clue that Tibetans are not han chinese and on and on .

I'm sure you believe this, sort of like some special ed kid who thinks they're the first to figure out 2+2=4.

> And you are the one that are still unable to answer my simple questions above. Keep digging deeper and I will keep point out your foolishness and laugh at . LOL.

Why would I keep answering questions posed by some tard who can't understand a simple sentence?

Funny how you would NOT dare to quote and reply about what well know entities said about Wikipedia as I posted above. And yet you are still claiming Wikipedia is in the same league as any well known encyclopedia. LOL. See the statement of "The fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic research..."? See it? No comment? Nothing?

That's how you debate as grow up. You state your assertion and then provide links and sources from well known sources to back up your statements, not just simply cite Wikipedia as you are doing. Who is the one have no clue yet mouthing off again? LOL.

Keep doubling down on being stupid and ignorant and I will be here to point them out for everyone to laugh at.

Must . Stop. Laughing. So. Hard.

 

[Svnla]

Another day, another country in the neighborhood is arming up, ready for the chinese invaders - https://www.yahoo.com/news/indonesia-vows-defend-every-inch-territory-072725896.html

 

[agent00f]

Funny how you would NOT dare to quote and reply about what well know entities said about Wikipedia as I posted above. And yet you are still claiming Wikipedia is in the same league as any well known encyclopedia. LOL. See the statement of "The fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic research..."? See it? No comment? Nothing?

That's how you debate as grow up. You state your assertion and then provide links and sources from well known sources to back up your statements, not just simply cite Wikipedia as you are doing. Who is the one have no clue yet mouthing off again? LOL.

Keep doubling down on being stupid and ignorant and I will be here to point them out for everyone to laugh at.

Must . Stop. Laughing. So. Hard.

The main limitation to this conversation is your (in)ability to understand simple sentences. For example, wiki quality is comparatively good & often better for popular articles, but sometimes lacking at the peripherals (entries which don't even exist in paper counterparts), so sweeping singular generalizations about all articles are inevitably oversimplistic. The challenge here is how to explain this concept that involves more than "A good, B bad" to someone like you. Experience above dictates it's an impossible/futile task due to insufficient cognitive hardware.

The only comedy in this situation is one of us has actually lived in china & been to tibet, and that's certainly not you. While it's possible you might be the china "expert" you think of yourself as in the local trailer park, or at least the only there who can find it on a map, this is not a suitable standard for expertise among people who have some.

 

[zinfamous]

Again, you are lying and trying so hard to dig yourself out of a deep hole of your own making.

a) WiIki = wikipedia = any idiot could edit and change almost anything on it. No amount of serious research needed.

b) Encyclopedia = from serious research and from well educated people such as Britannica. Only authorized people from the company can make change or edit it.

Wiki =! same league as any well known encyclopedia. Not even close.

You were calling for Wiki and now you double down on stupidity and try to claim wiki is the same as well know encyclopedias? Seriously, how stupid can you be?

Still nothing for my questions but more desperation grabbing for straws? Who is the moron now? LOL x 10000000000000.

Keep on being stupid and I will be here point them out and laughing. So. Easy.

Yet you still don't understand that wikipedia is more accurate than the older, more traditional encyclopedias?
Foam and rant about your passionate belief in something "that must be" simply because you want it to, but the data doesn't lie, and you are wrong

Wiki > britannica. But that is a battle of encyclopedias, anyway, which really is not an acceptable source once you get out of grade school. Primary sources only, please. ...but that is the real value of wikipedia: a great aggregate of sources, and pretty much every page will give you access to nice primary sources on the topic.

Look! Here's a primary source:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

Here are some other sources:

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/08/...ly-to-other-encyclopedias-in-three-languages/
http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

And of course, there is a reason that britannica stopped printing their books:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/251796/has_wikipedia_beat_britannica_in_the_encyclopedia_battle_.html

I guess they of all people know better than you that they are, indeed, obsolete due to an indisputable fact. Wonder what that is?

 

[Svnla]

The main limitation to this conversation is your (in)ability to understand simple sentences. For example, wiki quality is comparatively good & often better for popular articles, but sometimes lacking at the peripherals (entries which don't even exist in paper counterparts), so sweeping singular generalizations about all articles are inevitably oversimplistic. The challenge here is how to explain this concept that involves more than "A good, B bad" to someone like you. Experience above dictates it's an impossible/futile task due to insufficient cognitive hardware.

The only comedy in this situation is one of us has actually lived in china & been to tibet, and that's certainly not you. While it's possible you might be the china "expert" you think of yourself as in the local trailer park, or at least the only there who can find it on a map, this is not a suitable standard for expertise among people who have some.

More mumbo jumbo bullcrap and pathetic attempts of insulting from you. Again, see what well known sources that I quoted said about Wiki? Shall the readers trust them or trust a clueless ignorant newbie like you? LOL.

Again, let me spell it out for you how normal people debate..."state your assertion and then provide links and sources from well known sources to back up your statements, not just simply cite Wikipedia"..See it?
Read it, and try to understand it.

You debating skill is just like a typical chinese wumao. Are you a chinese that living in the US? Dare to answer or are you going to run away like an eunuch, again?

 

[Svnla]

Yet you still don't understand that wikipedia is more accurate than the older, more traditional encyclopedias?
Foam and rant about your passionate belief in something "that must be" simply because you want it to, but the data doesn't lie, and you are wrong

Wiki > britannica. But that is a battle of encyclopedias, anyway, which really is not an acceptable source once you get out of grade school. Primary sources only, please. ...but that is the real value of wikipedia: a great aggregate of sources, and pretty much every page will give you access to nice primary sources on the topic.

Look! Here's a primary source:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

Here are some other sources:

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/08/...ly-to-other-encyclopedias-in-three-languages/
http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

And of course, there is a reason that britannica stopped printing their books:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/251796/has_wikipedia_beat_britannica_in_the_encyclopedia_battle_.html

I guess they of all people know better than you that they are, indeed, obsolete due to an indisputable fact. Wonder what that is?

Read post #57 above, no need to repeat myself again. Should I trust them or should I trust you guys that believe in Wiki, the same Wiki that said Ted Kennedy was dead before he really was and all of the errors and mistakes and edits and changes by any idiot around the world?

Look here = http://www.pcworld.com/article/170874/The_15_Biggest_Wikipedia_Blunders.html

and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...-business-entries-contain-factual-errors.html

Keep putting your faith in Wiki <snickering>. I rather not.

 

[zinfamous]

Still no answer to the questions I mentioned above? Therefore, by default, you LOSE. Just take it and shove it and keep your mouth shut. Very simple to understand. Do you know anything about the old saying "put up or shut up"? Seriously.

Again, either you provide answers to my questions above or hit the road. No amount of spin will change the facts, foolish newbie and stop quoting me if you are unable to debate honestly.

See, this is why no one takes you seriously--ever.

You present your case as a 3rd grader would. It seems that you have spent your life completely unexposed to adult conversations. Were you deprived of basic instructions in cognitive discourse and critical thinking?

This does fascinate me, because you tend to claim yourself as a grown-up, but in threads like this you only ever expose yourself as an individual with the information command of a basic high school civics class and some cognitive disconnect that prevents you from digesting factual information that wholly challenges that fragments of information that you have collected and pieced together to form some piecemeal understanding of how the world works.

 

[zinfamous]

Read post #57 above, no need to repeat myself again. Should I trust them or should I trust you guys that believe in Wiki, the same Wiki that said Ted Kennedy was dead before he really was and all of the errors and mistakes and edits and changes by any idiot around the world?

No, you should trust the peer-reviewed data and neutral science that I presented to you.

Is that really too hard for you to understand? You seem to take a passionate and extremely personal approach to the information that you have collected to form this world as you understand it. I take it that this has made it very difficult for you to accept any very real challenges to the unstable foundation of your reality.

The fact is this: you are wrong and none of us are saying that "because we believe it," but because it is the truth. I'm just showing you the window through which you can either choose to update your reality, or just ignore it and stay comfortably ignorant.

 

[Svnla]

No, you should believe the peer-reviewed data and neutral science that I presented to you.

Is that really too hard for you to understand? You seem to take a passionate and extremely personal approach to the information that you have collected to form this world as you understand it. I take it that this has made it very difficult for you to accept any very real challenges to the unstable foundation of your reality.

The fact is this: you are wrong and none of us are saying that "because we believe it," but because it is the truth. I'm just showing you the window through which you can either choose to update your reality, or just ignore it and stay comfortably ignorant.

See my edit and two links about Wiki above. Oh, I don't care if you or anyone take me seriously or not. I just post the facts and with well know sources to back me up instead of Wik and you guys can bitch and moan about my sig. You were saying something about critical thinking, eh? <snickering> Who is the 3rd grader again?

 

[zinfamous]

See my edit and two links about Wiki above. Oh, I don't care if you or anyone take me seriously or not. I just post the facts and with well know sources to back me up instead of Wik and you guys can bitch and moan about my sig. You were saying something about critical thinking, eh? <snickering> Who is the 3rd grader again?

yes, and your edits and links were already dismissed by what I had posted before that (which you ignored).

Yes, your sig again: a human that claims to never be wrong is a free admission that this is a person that refuses to learn. One who is wholly incapable of engaging in adult conversation, as you so freely display in your various posts around here and your self-satisfying kiddie "snickers" which, I assure you, no one is snickering with you.

 

[agent00f]

More mumbo jumbo bullcrap and pathetic attempts of insulting from you. Again, see what well known sources that I quoted said about Wiki? Shall the readers trust them or trust a clueless ignorant newbie like you? LOL.

I'm simply stating the reality of the situation, it's not my fault they reflect poorly on you, as reality often does for dunning kruger posterkids. For example, those links you got from googling "wiki is terrible" mostly highlight problems for semi-active contributors, which are true enough but have nothing to do the topic at hand. This factual reality illuminates the way your mind works: I think A is bad so find everything negative anyone with a respective sounding nametag has said about A to "prove" this. There's no actual understanding much less perspective involved here, presumably due to the aforementioned inability.

Again, let me spell it out for you how normal people debate..."state your assertion and then provide links and sources from well known sources to back up your statements, not just simply cite Wikipedia"..See it?
Read it, and try to understand it.

Ironically that's what wiki literally does. Evidently you don't even understand what a citation is, yet feel compelled to keep mouthing off about encyclopedias.

You debating skill is just like a typical chinese wumao. Are you a chinese that living in the US? Dare to answer or are you going to run away like a eunuch, again?

This is a self-demonstrating statement: "Why would I keep answering questions posed by some tard who can't understand a simple sentence?". QED.

 

[Svnla]

yes, and your edits and links were already dismissed by what I had posted before that (which you ignored).

Yes, your sig again: a human that claims to never be wrong is a free admission that this is a person that refuses to learn. One who is wholly incapable of engaging in adult conversation, as you so freely display in your various posts around here and your self-satisfying kiddie "snickers" which, I assure you, no one is snickering with you.

You want to post Wiki to back up your statements? Knock yourself out. I rather use well known sources to back up my statements. That's how I roll.

When I did say that I never wrong as you claimed? Post the exact words that I said so. I will wait. Put up or shut up.

 

[Svnla]

I'm simply stating the reality of the situation, it's not my fault they reflect poorly on you, as reality often does for dunning kruger posterkids. For example, those links you got from googling "wiki is terrible" mostly highlight problems for semi-active contributors, which are true enough but have nothing to do the topic at hand. This factual reality illuminates the way your mind works: I think A is bad so find everything negative anyone with a respective sounding nametag has said about A to "prove" this. There's no actual understanding much less perspective involved here, presumably due to the aforementioned inability.



Ironically that's what wiki literally does. Evidently you don't even understand what a citation is, yet feel compelled to keep mouthing off about encyclopedias.



This is a self-demonstrating statement: "Why would I keep answering questions posed by some tard who can't understand a simple sentence?". QED.

Obviously, you can't read. I rather back up my statements with well know sources and you and others refer to use Wiki. The same Wiki with full of errors and mistakes. Still no answer from you? What else is new.

 

[zinfamous]

You want to post Wiki to back up your statements? Knock yourself out. I rather use well known sources to back up my statements. That's how I roll.

sure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Of course you'll hate it, but the article is as cited and sourced as anything you can possibly submit. Granted, you still don't understand how wiki works, so you'll simply never get it. The fact that wiki updates those errors you cite--that exist for seconds on average--is exactly why they are the best encyclopedia.

But again, an encyclopedia. You aren't even listening to the argument here. I've already told you that encyclopedias are for chumps, but wiki is a great starting board for internet linking.

When I did say that I never wrong as you claimed? Post the exact words that I said so. I will wait. Put up or shut up.

fair enough, I had remembered that it was explicitly a part of your silly little sig, as it more or less spells it out. No worries, bro--I trust that you can't output enough bandwidth to generate an insult that would ever truly offend me.

 

[Svnla]

sure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Of course you'll hate it, but the article is as cited and sourced as anything you can possibly submit. Granted, you still don't understand how wiki works, so you'll simply never get it. The fact that wiki updates those errors you cite--that exist for seconds on average--is exactly why they are the best encyclopedia.

But again, an encyclopedia. You aren't even listening to the argument here. I've already told you that encyclopedias are for chumps, but wiki is a great starting board for internet linking.



fair enough, I had remembered that it was explicitly a part of your silly little sig, as it more or less spells it out. No worries, bro--I trust that you can't output enough bandwidth to generate an insult that would ever truly offend me.

I don't hate anything about Wiki. I just rather use well known sources as references/back ups to my statements. You are putting your own words into my mouth again, I never said Encyclopedias are all that. What I said was I rather use them before I use Wiki and I put them in higher place than Wiki, ie. I refer them over Wiki anytime. That's why I used several sources other than Wiki in this thread and I will continue to do so.

I just read my sig again, and not a word about being wrong or right. Not one. No insult from me. Don't like my sig? too bad. You don't see me whine and bitch about anyone sig- ever, do you? I have better things to do.

 

[Zaap]

I believe China will eventually evolve into a super power far larger than then US.

China is a country where they kick farmers off their land in order to build entire ghost cities no one lives in, just so the local party bosses can claim the highest quota of "progress".

The whole can of shit will eventually topple in on itself HARD.

 

[Svnla]

China is a country where they kick farmers off their land in order to build entire ghost cities no one lives in, just so the local party bosses can claim the highest quota of "progress".

The whole can of shit will eventually topple in on itself HARD.

That's why the amount of money china is spending on internal security to control its huge population is even higher than external defense budget. Let me see if I can find the sources and of course, not from Wiki.

Here it is = http://qz.com/59367/china-is-spending-more-on-policing-its-own-people-than-on-its-defense-budget/