[Oyk]

“Punch above your weight” is an idiom meaning to try to be more successful in doing something that normally requires more power, etc than you have. I read a social media user using this idiomatic expression to describe SG’s condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. While that phrase is idiomatically acceptable to those who would prefer SG to keep a low-profile around UN, it may not be acceptable to those hungry for justice. There’s a great diversity of opinion in cyberspace. A watered-down criticism of Putin has an element of ambiguity. It could be interpreted as either for or against his country.

It's between you and me here.  No need to bring in "cyberspace" when you are losing it.  Offering English language tutorial is only a weal attempt at trying to wiggle away. 

[p1acebo]

Nice titties

[S I M T A N]

It's between you and me here.  No need to bring in "cyberspace" when you are losing it.  Offering English language tutorial is only a weal attempt at trying to wiggle away. 

I began this discussion by quoting someone’s words, used figuratively, to try to see the issue from a different perspective. There are no rules here, written or unspoken, that says two sgtalkers must confine themselves to a dialogue without gathering quotations from cyberland to illustrate their point. A glimpse into a myriad of postings here show many rely heavily on articles or quotes to prove their point or to set the wheels of discussion in motion.

You may consider a debate to be a win or lose proposition, but I regard it as an arena of differing/opposing views. I am also a firm believer in the value of tolerance. Tolerance assumes that I’ve judged the other person’s viewpoint to be wrong but I’ve chosen to respect his right to be wrong.
 
By the way, giving an online tutorial is just not my style. It so happened that someone used an idiomatic phrase to depict S’pore “punching above its weight.” I merely expanded on that idiom and made inferences about the many who nodded in approval of SG’s gallant stand that boosted its image as defender of rules-based order. Yet some others made their disapproval. I was making an observation about people reacting in different ways. This has nothing to do with losing the plot.

[S I M T A N]

If there are 141 ayes (those who voted in favour of a UN resolution demanding Russia withdraw its military forces from Ukraine, then we should also do the same thing..............

The large percentage of “ayes” votes was a resounding success for Ukraine, but the ensuing inaction was a resounding “nay,” a huge disappointment at failing to end the bloody year-long war.

Most of the member states had voted on 5 previous resolutions, addressing various concerns with regard to the Ukraine crisis. Resolutions passed by UN General Assembly aren’t legally binding and they have no legal power, unlike Security Council resolutions.
 
The SC is charged with maintaining international peace and security. Unfortunately, the SC is paralyzed by Russia’s veto power. Oppenheim’s international Law says there are 5 permanent UN members; namely the US, China, France, UK and Russian Federation. They were accorded permanent membership owing to “their importance in the aftermath of world war 2.” Resolutions by the General Assembly are merely recommendations and are viewed as an expression of the will of the international community.
 
It isn’t a lost cause yet as NATO & Allies have been providing unprecedented levels of support to Ukraine, like helping to reform its armed forces and defence institutions, providing financial aids and training for its troops. On your part giving moral support and make your voices heard should suffice.

[Oyk]

I began this discussion by quoting someone’s words, used figuratively, to try to see the issue from a different perspective. There are no rules here, written or unspoken, that says two sgtalkers must confine themselves to a dialogue without gathering quotations from cyberland to illustrate their point. A glimpse into a myriad of postings here show many rely heavily on articles or quotes to prove their point or to set the wheels of discussion in motion.

You may consider a debate to be a win or lose proposition, but I regard it as an arena of differing/opposing views. I am also a firm believer in the value of tolerance. Tolerance assumes that I’ve judged the other person’s viewpoint to be wrong but I’ve chosen to respect his right to be wrong.
 
By the way, giving an online tutorial is just not my style. It so happened that someone used an idiomatic phrase to depict S’pore “punching above its weight.” I merely expanded on that idiom and made inferences about the many who nodded in approval of SG’s gallant stand that boosted its image as defender of rules-based order. Yet some others made their disapproval. I was making an observation about people reacting in different ways. This has nothing to do with losing the plot.

Whoa!  Just a short sentence by me could trigger such a defensive response by you!  Seems like I was spot on.

Raw nerve.  

And now you are obviously trying to justify yourself by arguing:  But...but...I am not the only person bringing in cyberspace wad!  You look around!  So many other peepur are doing that!   

Well, if you want to use the communist propaganda uploaded, cut and paste, lock stock and barrel, by the likes of manthink and cityhantum for your "defence", that's pretty lame you know.

And then you devoted one whole/entire paragraph to a sermon on "tolerance".  Well, I will try to tolerate reading your stuff, but there are limits.  Please take note.  Your sermon does not convert. 

[K88 shu shu]

so sad that this thread become a boxing ring.

[Gemstar]

It's between you and me here.  No need to bring in "cyberspace" when you are losing it.  Offering English language tutorial is only a weal attempt at trying to wiggle away. 

You are most irritating and a big trouble maker here.

[Oyk]

You are most irritating and a big trouble maker here.

Talking about yourself?  

[RichDad]

so sad that this thread become a boxing ring.

Haha, admin should have deleted this thread long ago. Such a thread will surely create friction.

[cheekopekman]

Haha, admin should have deleted this thread long ago. Such a thread will surely create friction.

You want it to be totally shutdown meh? 

[rookrikesl]

https://i.ibb.co/PNRTcLQ/yekkynuisance.jpg

[S I M T A N]

Whoa!  Just a short sentence by me could trigger such a defensive response by you!  Seems like I was spot on.

Raw nerve.  

And now you are obviously trying to justify yourself by arguing:  But...but...I am not the only person bringing in cyberspace wad!  You look around!  So many other peepur are doing that!   

Well, if you want to use the communist propaganda uploaded, cut and paste, lock stock and barrel, by the likes of manthink and cityhantum for your "defence", that's pretty lame you know.

And then you devoted one whole/entire paragraph to a sermon on "tolerance".  Well, I will try to tolerate reading your stuff, but there are limits.  Please take note.  Your sermon does not convert. 

There’s a fine line between being defensive and being profuse in writing. As you can see, I’m a loquacious poster who tends to be rather long-winded at times. Evidently you misread my scrupulous attention to detail as defensiveness. For your information, none of your posts has touched a sensitive nerve of mine. That’s because I have ice water in my veins. But I make no claim to being unbeatable. To borrow a phrase you once posted, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.” I am inclined to think hardbitten forum posters like you are not easily provoked even in the face of repeated provocations.

Again, the sharing of my philosophy to respect other’s right to be wrong was misconstrued by you as sermonizing. I for one can talk at length about anything without sermonizing. Moralizing writings are full of fine words which mean nothing to many people. I have long known that trying to convert others to my way of thinking would be an exercise in futility. You can’t change human character. Hence, my philosophy of life is to live and let live.

[S I M T A N]

so sad that this thread become a boxing ring.

When the gloves are off in a boxing match, the fighters fight with their bare-knuckles, inflicting serious facial and bodily injuries on each other. But when thickly-padded gloves are worn, injuries will be greatly reduced. Think of boxing as analogous to forum-ing.

When forummers adopt bare-knuckles approach to forum discussion, the debate is likely to degenerate into a mudslinger with recriminations flying back and forth. But when debaters wear their heavily-padded gloves of muted reaction and toned-down language as they pit their caustic wits against each other, the debate will remain somewhat controlled. As long as they are not overly angry or emotional and the discussion doesn’t turn into a shouting match and name-calling, the friction and sly little digs made at each other is still tolerable and probably isn’t a breach of forum etiquette.

[cheekopekman]

so sad that this thread become a boxing ring.

Boxing ring meh?   I thought killing field leh!

[Oyk]

Boxing ring meh?   I thought killing field leh!

Sgtalkers' mission is to overtake edmw as the go-to forum to pwn members. 

[Instinct]

This forum is to share and say what you believe in. No need to say what people like to hear. So long as speak the truth, people can agree to disagree. The worst people are those using vulgarity on those that don't agree with him/her, which is the most despicable people here.

[debono]

This forum is to share and say what you believe in. No need to say what people like to hear. So long as speak the truth, people can agree to disagree. The worst people are those using vulgarity on those that don't agree with him/her, which is the most despicable people here.

Spot on, you have hit the nail on the head.  Those that resort to vulgarities are the ones who should be ashamed .................

[S I M T A N]

Boxing ring meh?   I thought killing field leh!

Sporadic cases of bickering between a handful of posters doesn’t really resemble killing fields which, to my mind, is an epic quarrel between groups of pugnacious forummers.

There had been a lot of bad blood in other forums between Christian fundamentalists and militant atheists and between political animals on both sides of the political divide.
 
The ruckus they caused was giving the forum admin a real headache, who was forced to resort to measures like locking up controversial threads and banning quarrelsome personas. But with no end of trouble getting forum users to discuss things civilly, admin’s hand was forced, and he had to implement a bylaw prohibiting discussion about religion.
 
Over here, religious and atheistic fundamentalists are mercifully thin on the ground, and many seem disinclined to enter the troubled waters of religion. A word to the wise: our ‘mini-killing field’ may degenerate into a large-scale free-for-all if more and more sharp-tongued and vulgar personae enter the race fray looking for trouble.

[K88 shu shu]

This forum is to share and say what you believe in. No need to say what people like to hear. So long as speak the truth, people can agree to disagree. The worst people are those using vulgarity on those that don't agree with him/her, which is the most despicable people here.

1 needle see blood.

[kelhot2001]

those most likeable ones are not takling nonsense n polite
most hated are those degrade n insulting n rude ones

Likeable ones not talking nonsense?

That pretty much excludes all the Wumaos.

[WhatDoYouThink!]

Got any likable ermao around?

[Oyk]

those most likeable ones are not takling nonsense n polite
most hated are those degrade n insulting n rude ones

It's hard to rank who's the "most".

They can all go on stage and stand shoulder to shoulder.

Most disgusting
Gemstar
SgBuffet
lvlrsSTI

Most well liked
Cityhantum
Manthink
5354

Most feared
OYK