He was sharp, he was well-prepared, he had the numbers, he was articulate, he took apart Vincent Wijey easily, and he skillfully picked his battles e.g. By objectively, I mean to say that my opinion takes into account neither my friendship with Gerald nor my political leanings.Ģ) Tharman is a little hard to beat I suppose. *I understand this is still subjective, as there is no objective measures for things like that. Objectively*, this is how I’d rank the performance of each of the participants: And by “I’m ok”, I mean I’ll be able to take it “well” if you choose to continue this discussion, in case you interpret my “ok” as less than positive.ġ) I think you did well but I’ll say it as it is… I’m ok for you to clarify further even though you said you rest your case, since I’m no lawyer and neither is this a court. Thus I predict WP will win only Hougang SMC this GE. It does not change our perception that PAP is ok. We do not start on WP’s side and we are not going to over-analyse semantics to try to come up with a defense for WP like you have done.
We just want whatever party that works for Singapore and we will continue voting PAP since it is doing ok. Ultimately most voters will not vote WP for the sake of voting WP when even WP itself thinks PAP is doing ok. But even going by this argument and there is indeed a neutral possibility between “poor” and “well” that let’s term as “ok”, this means that if WP thinks PAP is not doing poorly, WP thinks PAP is doing “ok” or “well”. But I think what you are trying to say is that there is some neutral possibility between “poor” and “well”. We move on to 2) “WP does not think PAP has done poorly” You would agree if 1) is true, WP does not have the credibility or competence for Singaporeans to vote for them. – WP negelcted to say PAP has done poorly when it actually wanted to do so. – WP chose not to say PAP has done poorly even though it had evidence or – WP chose not to say PAP has done poorly because it had no evidence or
In that case, you would agree with me that we can infer either 1) WP thinks PAP has done poorly but has not said this about PAP, or 2) WP does not think PAP has done poorly.ġ) implies any of the following possibilities: I think you agree with me that WP has not said that PAP has done poorly. Of using logic, you are over-analysing semantics in order to disprove what I set out.
0 kommentar(er)
