I'm laughing with you, so we're even. I weighed in on this book in another thread. Now free Tibet, you great big wonderful man!
My my, a change in stance? Could it be so? Why free Tibet when you can ship them all to tiny little reserves on the foot of the Himalayas? Self governance and autonomy at its best no, SamFisher style no? As for the other thread about the book, I probably won't waste my time reading it, but let me guess what you've stated. Just a hunch. Feel free to point me out wrong. You've said something along the lines of there is some infinitely small merit to the book?
Yup, I want them to be suzerains of the almighty Republic of SF. I know what's good for them, and you, if you know what's good for you, mfw. in a nutshell, I said that the book probably wasn't "completely full of crap and written by somebody hwo hates all chinese people" as has been the prevailing theory, and that many of the factual issues presented in it are proabably true as they are easily verifiable. But what do I know - I'm a racist.
Uh huh. I suppose the theory of fate and destiny has indeed been proved. Hail you, almighty SamFisher, writer of fate. I don't recall saying the book is "completely full of crap and written by somebody hwo hates all chinese people." But if somebody did, I wouldn't be surprised (albeit a bit over the top). No, I think the author is simply writing what a small fraction of Americans want to believe to sell his book. However, the main thing that caught my attention is how accurate I had been with this comment. I suppose that I know you all too well. As for the racist thing, don't try to blame me for it. Certainly wasn't me who put "white men's burden" into your mouth (and notice I am ignoring your other trespasses here). You see, unlike you, I do not have the ability to write other people's destiny.
How about a "we're not worthy" instead? You should accept no less. But on a more serious note, do you remember the term "wiggle wiggle" that I used to associate so frequently with you (Deckard as well)? Dodged another bullet again didn't we? Speaking of good ol' Deckard, I was in D&D (I think) couple weeks back. And his pathetic and absolutely idiotic rant about Putin's support for "dictator in Belarus" was quite amusing.
Holy cow, this is a new low for Western journalism. For some, poetic license knows no boundary when it comes to China related stuff.
Yup, dodged a bullet like a pro-democracy demonstrator in 1989! Or a Tibetan in 1951, or 59, or 91...etc! MFFY, this is the GARM. That means Game Action and Roster Moves. This discussion has no place here - so start a thread in the other forum if you want.
Gee Sammy, you know that I'm all about knowing something about what you are talking about before you open your mouth. And you clearly don't. But from our past dialogues we already know about that don't we? Now, I have long abandoned the silly practise of starting any threads in D&D. Why? Because you Americans have long proven that truth is irrelevant to you. You believe what you want to believe and little else. The world is round not because it is so, but because you believe it is so. So indeed, why should I bother trying to impart some truth in discussions. Tell me for one thing, when have you seen anybody acknowledge to be wrong in GARM, D&D or anywhere else? That by itself speaks volumes. In fact, isn't this thread itself one giant example? As for 1989, boy, you don't mean to imply you actually know what happened in 1989 do you? And of course Tibet!!! Who could forget Tibet! Given the number of times I owned your ass and the number of times you have conveniently, ahem...went away, I'm surprised you still insist on bringing that up. Btw, remember what my point was on Tibet. Did you find any proof that Tibets is 1) historically should not be part of China OR 2) legally should not be part of China yet? It is funny that I've waited for over a year and still have not received my legitimate reply. Smart guy like you, I'm shocked. As for why I've brought up what Deckard said in D&D, there is a perfect reason for that. Now, your boy Deckard tried to use a little bit of truth (Lukashenko is a dictator) and try to bullsh1t from it (he's backed by Putin). Funny thing, isn't that kind of like this book? Use a little bit of truth to justify one huge lie? IMO that is even worse than lying outright due to the fact that some idiots out there might actually believe it based on the little truth present. Of course, expectedly, you endorsed the book. But if this thread ends in D&D you can be quite sure I won't be there. Bigtexxxx annoys the hell outta me.
