matt_of_asia

Feel free to troll. I know I do it once in a while. Honest answers are more appreciated, however. If you are trolling, you better be funny. Or I will downvote you.

Why does the current KMT government keep trying to debate issues that died 60 years ago? Can they not start trying to lead the way into the future with the rest of the world? A whole new industry awaits the young engineers and scientists of Taiwan. Can someone in charge take command and instead of fighting tired old battles and reliving personal nightmares from the 1970's and trying to relive the boom years of the 1980's and 1990's like ignorant ostriches.. how about they show the world that Taiwan will lead the way into the future weather the UN likes it or not.

Step up or lose out. Your choice, brave leaders.

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.as...

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0%E2%80%A6

China's rich refuse to stay in the mess that they created. The idea of success in China is to get rich off other's suffering, then take the money and run to somewhere more clean, safe and free to enjoy their 'earnings'. Perhaps the elite in China don't understand the consequences of not having social justice or free speech. They won't get to keep the financial gains if money can't buy you clean air, food, or safety.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2077...

China's rich refuse to stay in the mess that they created. The idea of success in China is to get rich off other's suffering, then take the money and run to somewhere more clean, safe and free to enjoy their 'earnings'. Perhaps the elite in China don't understand the consequences of not having social justice or free speech. They won't get to keep the financial gains if money can't buy you clean air, food, or safety.

Unrest and starvation and riots creep across the Middle Kingdom. The people there have no recourse but violence, petty vengeance and idiotic superstitions against the unpunished crimes of some members of the elite. Can the so-called leaders of China manage to open up to reality and see beyond their own lies that they have chanted so many times they actually started to believe them? The economy has grown, many people have been helped, but can it last without true, open representation and peaceful debate as well as fair (ideally non lethal) justice for real mistakes made?

China cannot control anything beyond the borders of Shanghai and Beijing and their allies in Hong Kong. The heartland is a lawless waste, plundered and bare. A few more enlightened leaders have asked for rural development but is there really any leadership capable of effectively carrying out these policies beyond where the money lies? The so called governments in those areas do not respond when the central authority asks them... The military commanders are flush with money and weapons, but do not respect their civilian directors who made it possible.

China is not a threat to Taiwan. It is a threat to itself and all its neighbors if it cannot keep itself in order. China needs representative democracy and it knows it. Taiwan will not give up what it has earned and to take over Taiwan militarily will cost China all the knowledge and lessons that it needs to adapt to the challenges that the future will have for it. China taking Taiwan militarily will cost it the veneer of political legitimacy that it has built up by preventing complete anarchy and helping its citizens regain some shreds of dignity that were taken away by the incompetent Mao decades ago.

Taiwan is a peaceful nation, not a threat to China. But if the Government (or perhaps the off-kilter military) of China exceeds its boundaries and projects itself, Taiwan will bleed it dry with the death of a thousand cuts. The only way I could see Taiwan realistically rejoining China is when a true opposition party (or 3 or 10) exists to state their views and debate openly and rationally without fear of violence to themselves or their families.

The world needs China to have justice for its people. It is too important to delay any longer. Grow the **** up, punish corrupt members and try and get the free flow of ideas and scientific information into your country. I eagerly await a flood of Chinese engineers, workers and innovators who can help solve the vast problems we all face, as the same members of a planet that needs global governance, together as a unit. The egg shell needs to break itself open and the rather limited myopic view of China's leadership needs to go beyond feeding themselves and their immediate families, but rather making sure there is still anything left on the planet for any of their families to inherit. Climate change does not wait for your preferences, nor will it wait for America's preferences.

A high rate of academic fraud exists in China. Many people still prefer to believe 'traditional' methods and ghosts and false promises that don't work. When people speak out against liars, they get beaten. What will this mean when China wants to try to develop a REALISTIC scientific industry and method of running their society and not a scam based religion and fear based society?

http://newhumanist.org.uk/2365/lies-damn-lies-and-...

I haven't been keeping up on news of the royals, was just wondering if the old girl has gone to the other palace in the sky yet.

A Taiwanese co-worker asked me this question; I told him You either ride IN the car or DRIVE the car; but I cannot explain why it is OK for us to ride on other vehicles to travel but not cars. Any rule that applies or is this one of the strange exceptions that exist to keep track of?

or must we say "Peter is sitting between you and me?" in formal writing?

or are both acceptable formal answers?

I am trying to explain to a teacher as to why "with" cannot be replaced by "of" in this sentence:"Jeff decided to buy the stamp with a planet on it because he likes everything about space."

But 'with' CAN be interchangeable in other sentences such as "He also found a large poster of the eight planets."

Is there any grammar rule that covers this and can help me explain clearly? I am having trouble finding much in my texts or on the net.

I NEED TO KNOW. IT'S SO IMPORTANT I WILL USE ALL CAPS!!!!!

I find it trickier, because I think both are currently stated. Personally I think 'a' is what it should be, given that MRT starts with M, but perhaps the 'eh' beginning of the 'ehm' (M) in MRT makes this more acceptable to grammar nazis. Does anyone care to guide a young grammar nazi into learning the wise ways of elder psychotics?

I am aware that it must be phrased "I think it IS good." Or "I think it's good." The argument the Taiwanese person uses is that in his text (which seems incorrect) It lists the Subject + think/consider/feel/ + it +adj + clause

Does anyone have any links to rules about 'it' + think? Or am I somehow imagining this error which seems glaringly wrong to me exists? I won't let the error go to print again, but I really want to be able to explain clearly why the 'it' in that scenario is incorrect usage. It makes me CRAZY!!

The text from a person explaining why she likes drinking tomato juice...

"It's good for health."

Shouldn't that sentence read "It's good for MY health." or "It's good for YOUR health." or "It's good for PEOPLE'S health." or am I being overly critical and it is fine...?

"Can't Jack come over for dinner?" is informal and not acceptable, right?

it should be "Can Jack come over for dinner?" to be formal.

Or am I completely off base? Both forms are now accepted?

Specifically 'and nor' is strange to me. Are we allowed to use this sentence structure- it has 2 conjunctions paired... but it didn't come up on Word 2010 when I typed it in. Or is my overkill reflex at work grammatically for no reason?

Thankyou for having the guts to defuse a potential un-needed flashpoint, Mr Lien.

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2010/12/11/2832...

I think both of these are acceptable in use... am I right or am I horribly wrong?

I feel the first one is not used very often, but is still correct.

A: I can't play the violin.

B: Me, __________.

The answer on the quiz I am editing states "Me, either." which seems wrong to me. I could swear it should read "Me neither." without the comma and not using 'either' for this situation... Am I wrong or right to think this?

The shooting of Lien's son is a horrible thing, if it did happen. How about there is proof of the event released to multiple international sources without vested interest in this. Otherwise... it seems very suspicious... like a set up. Which would not bode well for societal functions if the KMT who do LIKE harmony and peace as much as I do, would be well to remember. It isn't hard; there is a site called Wikileaks that an anonymous source could leak their cell phone/recorded video to... and have a few theatrical majors confirm that it was not computer generated, OR they could just show Mr. Lien's son with a damn hole in his face and shut us all up. I am not happy that it has to come to this, but nobody likes the implication that mafia figures manipulated the masses prior to an election, I just want truth so the event can end, Mr Lien's son can heal, and I don't need to listen to any other crackpot conspiracy ideas beyond my own (unproven) rantings about China.

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/local/taipei/20...