Like Tree73Likes

Groceries!

Closed Thread
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
  1. #71

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,414

    I'm in HC's side but I do still very much appreciate DG's likes though

    dear giant likes this.

  2. #72

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    13,099
    Quote Originally Posted by bryant.english:
    lol.......

    .....and so we enter day four of DG Vs HC....
    Day four only?
    It seems like months ago when we started this tango of happy dancing with misery..

  3. #73

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,369
    Quote Originally Posted by HowardCoombs:
    Day four only?
    It seems like months ago when we started this tango of happy dancing with misery..
    I'm happy as a clam, but my pointing out the realities of HK to people considering moving her for work (or, in other threads, trying to appeal to the consciences of HKer emigres planning on stranding their families here and burning their ships, à la Hernando Cortez, so that they can be closer to their aging parents) seems to be making you miserable.

  4. #74

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    13,099

    Pointing out that McDonalds has more flavour than Cantonese cousine is not a reality.
    Telling people that we are being poisoned is not a reality.
    Listening to you continually whining is the reality.
    When I respond, it makes me happier, so I'll continue to respond to keep up my happiness.
    Have a magical day

    Last edited by HowardCoombs; 21-06-2012 at 02:49 PM.
    dear giant likes this.

  5. #75

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,369

    Note to anyone who is considering emigrating to HK. If you are trying to determine whose advice regarding conditions on the ground in HK to consider with greater weight:

    Quote Originally Posted by HowardCoombs:
    Air is alright and getting better.
    versus

    Reuters (Jan 2012 regarding 2011 pollution): Hong Kong air pollution at worst levels ever: report

    And no, pollution has not improved in the last half year.
    TheBrit and Obaing2011 like this.

  6. #76

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    13,099

    You link to ppl with vested interests again.
    Here are some accurate stats with less bias:
    http://www.foe.org.hk/uploaded_files...%20version.pdf

    But what does this have to do with your continual attempts at changing the subject. I refer you to the start of this latest spat, after which you went into hiatus for a couple of days:
    You made a cheap shot about Hong Kong civil servants and I called you out on it; are you going to list any Hong Kong food scandals soon?


  7. #77

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,369
    Quote Originally Posted by HowardCoombs:
    You link to ppl with vested interests again.
    Here are some accurate stats with less bias:
    http://www.foe.org.hk/uploaded_files...%20version.pdf

    But what does this have to do with your continual attempts at changing the subject. I refer you to the start of this latest spat, after which you went into hiatus for a couple of days:
    You made a cheap shot about Hong Kong civil servants and I called you out on it; are you going to list any Hong Kong food scandals soon?
    The HK govt is not protecting HKers from the Mainland. Civil servants and others who should be safeguarding HK are just going through the motions. It was not a cheap shot. It was a rational observation.

    If your someone told you that an aircon had stopped working, you would be aware that it had failed because of the fact that, when you tried to turn it on, even if the little LED "on" indicator lit up, no cool air blew out. You wouldn't stamp your feet and demand that the other person prove to you that it was broken. The absence of cool air would be proof in and of itself.

    As for my hiatus, you had fallen once again into your rut of linking things that you hadn't actually read or the significance of which had escaped you as though you believed they supported your point. How much of my time should I spend educating you free of charge?

    Specifically, in a discussion about food being tainted at the source before being sold to consumers at supermarkets/wholesale markets, you linked to a PDF report of restaurant inspections from the New York City government.

    (1.) You tried to switch topics from food tainting/contamination at the source to restaurant inspection results. For someone always weeping about other people allegedly trying to change topics, that took the cake.

    (2.) The HK Government does not even maintain any publicly-available resource whereby the dining public can check restaurant inspection results ... while New York does for each of New York City's 24,000 restaurants. NYC / civilized world: 1. HK (again): nil.

    If the HK government were to try to make such a resource available, I think that the results would be fairly shocking. Which is probably why no moves have been made in that direction.
    TheBrit likes this.

  8. #78

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    13,099
    Quote Originally Posted by dear giant:
    The HK govt is not protecting HKers from the Mainland. Civil servants and others who should be safeguarding HK are just going through the motions. It was not a cheap shot. It was a rational observation.
    No, it was another one of your paranoid conclusions in line with the one a couple of months back where you claimed that HKPolice were hiding things and you could not trust their words.

    [snip more irrelevant drivel about western superiority]

    So, are you going to give us any food scandals in Hong Kong?

    Cmon, surely with your assertion of poisoned foods up north combined with your rational observation of HK not doing anything to protect their citizens would rationally result in lots of sick and dead people. Further rationally, we should have all kinds of food scandals around but rationally we dont because no one is checking because rationally [[insert new delusional but wholly rational observation]]
    What does your rationality conclude about that observation?
    Last edited by HowardCoombs; 21-06-2012 at 03:50 PM.

  9. #79

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,369
    Quote Originally Posted by HowardCoombs:
    You link to ppl with vested interests again.
    Here are some accurate stats with less bias:
    http://www.foe.org.hk/uploaded_files...%20version.pdf

    But what does this have to do with your continual attempts at changing the subject. I refer you to the start of this latest spat, after which you went into hiatus for a couple of days:
    You made a cheap shot about Hong Kong civil servants and I called you out on it; are you going to list any Hong Kong food scandals soon?
    I linked a report from Jan 2012 regarding HK's air quality as of end-of-year 2011.

    You've linked a report that includes charts of particular pollutants up to 2007 and a table with data comparisons between 1997 and 2003. Even they don't support your assertions.

    Between 1997 and 2003, according to figures provided by those with a vested interest in minimizing alarm over air pollution (HK and Guangdong govt), SO2 increased 5%, NOx and PM10 held steady, and VOCs increased 10%.



    The lines on these charts, ending at 5-year-old data points look flat or increasing to me. Certainly not all decreasing:



    Your trolling me is OK (though it gets a bit ridiculous when you begin to scold me for not spending more time debunking your outlandish claims -- e.g. your snark about a hiatus), but some people who aren't in HK and who are reading these threads in an effort to gauge conditions in HK might actually believe some of what you're writing.
    TheBrit likes this.

  10. #80

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,369
    Quote Originally Posted by HowardCoombs:
    No, it was another one of your paranoid conclusions in line with the one a couple of months back where you claimed that HKPolice were hiding things and you could not trust their words.

    [snip more irrelevant drivel about western superiority]

    So, are you going to give us any food scandals in Hong Kong?

    Cmon, surely with your assertion of poisoned foods up north combined with your rational observation of HK not doing anything to protect their citizens would rationally result in lots of sick and dead people. Further rationally, we should have all kinds of food scandals around but rationally we dont because no one is checking because rationally [[insert new delusional but wholly rational observation]]
    What does your rationality conclude about that observation?
    I gave you links to three recent Chinese-language articles describing food scandals in HK. Are those HK reporters closet imperialists too?

    As already discussed, we don't have more huge food scandals because the amount of checking going on is meager and the negative effects of the tainted/poisoned food are gradual and cumulative.

Closed Thread
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast