411–415 of 415 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What was everyone in Cambodia eating before the food with the pesticides on it?
Dude
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which Internet rule is it which states that we can all claim we have been any occupation that suits the discussion, and without any additional evidence to support such claims?
The assumption of honesty on HN. I really don't get anything out of this place, and afaik I'm not even contactable. But yeah, if you don't believe me, feel free to look at a bunch of financial statements and lavish over as many models as you like. Check ARPU numbers or read up on the history of your own markets. In true finance fashion, do your diligence and reach your own conclusions. It's a lot less morality based…
To summarize your statement: "I am correct because I have read the data. Since you have not read the data, you should go read the data, because then, and only then, will you see that I am correct. Until then, just accept that I am correct."
I still reject your claims because you have not provided any meaningful measure of support for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The assumption of honesty on HN. I really don't get anything out of this place, and afaik I'm not even contactable. But yeah, if you don't believe me, feel free to look at a bunch of financial statements and lavish over as many models as you like. Check ARPU numbers or read up on the history of your own markets. In true finance fashion, do your diligence and reach your own conclusions. It's a lot less morality based…
More non-points. To summarize your statement: "I am correct because I have read the data. Since you have not read the data, you should go read the data, because then, and only then, will you see that I am correct. Until then, just accept that I am correct." I still reject your claims because you have not provided any meaningful measure of support for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The assumption of honesty on HN. I really don't get anything out of this place, and afaik I'm not even contactable. But yeah, if you don't believe me, feel free to look at a bunch of financial statements and lavish over as many models as you like. Check ARPU numbers or read up on the history of your own markets. In true finance fashion, do your diligence and reach your own conclusions. It's a lot less morality based…
More non-points. To summarize your statement: "I am correct because I have read the data. Since you have not read the data, you should go read the data, because then, and only then, will you see that I am correct. Until then, just accept that I am correct." I still reject your claims because you have not provided any meaningful measure of support for them.
If I knew the world was round, and you kept saying it was flat - why would I have any reason to do more than let you know it wasn't so?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dude
From this response I'm guessing you are communicating that you'd rather not consider what kinds of options the people of Cambodia are facing: pesticide-laced food or malnutrition/starvation.
First of all you seem to dismiss the problems I described. Perhaps you need to re-read what I wrote with a less subjective attitude. Second you seem for some strange reason think that there is a choice between "pesticide-laced food or malnutrition/starvation". That's a false narrative. Also don't get hung up on pesticides, it was just as an example of lack of education, lack of information, lack of laws, corruption, and other issues that results in a market where the consumer have not got enough information to make a reflective choice.
I don't want to continue down your strange little rabbit hole that doesn't reflect any realistic option or facts of how life is in Cambodia or other similar countries. Given your strange questions I don't think you actually know so much about life in these countries or the issue people face. Seems you rather have some ideological viewpoint that you want to define as a narrative. I can assure you that any solution is not as easy as you think. It's complex issues. So please don't come with any simplistic ideological based statements with questions that doesn't make any sense, and attack me as someone who doesn't want to communicate with you.
"What was everyone in Cambodia eating before the food with the pesticides on it?"
Seriously, what are you expecting from this kind of question? Does it provide any value? Does it provide any argument at all? What are you really expecting me to explain to you from this question?
Oh and btw: Cambodia was a educated country with a functional society until the 1960s. Then USA decided to drop US 540,000 tons of bombs on the country killing hundred of thousands people. This resulted in Pol Pot taking over who then pretty much killed everyone with an education and lots more.