Maybe it's because "down the street" is 10 miles and the data points show the cluster around the market, not the lab.

No, use proper terminology.

Keeping.

TIFU by bullying my loner brother till he killed himself.

We've already established this is not stealing. It's finding.

Don't be silly. Take mom's cash. She's the one who set the rule. Make her see why it's a dumb rule.

Documented verbal contract?

Well it's been a year and even back then it was really only available on Taiwan sites. I would advice you search for it in Chinese.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/07/peng-shuai-says-weibo-post-sparked-enormous-misunderstanding

>It’s always good to see Peng Shuai, whether in an interview or attending the Olympic Games. However, her recent in-person interview does not alleviate any of our concerns about her initial post from 2 November.

See, people have met in person. But I bet that's not going to be enough anymore right?

>As to why the ccp might want to silence her, the ccp tried to silence the news of COVID within China for quite a while before the global outbreak. I don't see why they would want to do that instead of getting global help to contain the virus, but yet here we are.

We really going to do this?

The provincial government covered this from the federal level government for a week. Once this was discovered, the ccp immediately informed the WHO. It wasn't like the covered it up and got found out.

There's also been private meetings, not just video calls. And just not with the WTA. WTA also didn't get even a video call. The IOC has been the ones in contact, along with a couple of interviews for the media (some non Chinese).

Video calls are just the only ones we, the public, get to witness.

I think a lot of context is lost when people read the truncated/translated version of the post that started this. Reading it in Chinese, it is 90% a love letter and 10% details of the man using his power to get the girl.

The post has bad timing to be caught in the middle of the me too movement, but sexual assault/abuse is not really the point of the post.

There's no reason for anyone (or the ccp) to think it was intended as an accusation of crime. Why would there be a need to silence her?

>but if you can't access the money

video call. She's available to talk to you(well, not you...but people more important than you)

>you heard that a theft has occured

You've heard nothing to indicate she's been detained. All you have are "they could if they wanted to"

Your argument is based on the poorly defined idea that a confirmation isn't a confirmation. Which leaves me scratching my head.

There's a difference between saying "I've received some information" and "I've received confirmation. You're saying they are the same thing. Which they are not.

If you say you received confirmation, it means you believe it confirms the information you got.

>No, my bar is that if they can meet Peng Shuai without the monitoring of Chinese authorities

It isn't.

Because you've already clarified that stuff can happen after the meeting. And that's enough for it to fail your bar again.

After the meeting, you'll give me more examples of people who got arrested after public appearances. And use that to tell me it fails your bar.

Come on. You know its true.

If the meeting is in China, you'll say she's still within ccp influence. So you insist she flies out to meet you. There, you'll say ccp has a history of grabbing people from other countries. Or maybe you'll claim she has family in China.

Nothing she does will pass your bar. Let's reverse roles for fun. Let me have a turn being the troll. You come up with what you think is a bullet proof scenario and I either prove she's now your prisoner, or give you a reason why she still fails to meet the bar set.

They literally have zero information in front of them to be skeptical.

They're skeptical based on suspicions. All information actually points to this being nothing.

You're confusing suspicion and evidence.

But this isn't the point I was trying to make from the start. My point is that the statement from WTA is self contradictory. If your only rebuttal is going to be splitting hairs on the semantics of confirmation, I have to point out it's a very weak one.

No evidence will ever pass the bar you've set. Peng Shuai could fly to your house and stay with you for a year, and your argument would still hold : who's to know she didn't get captured the moment she left your house?

If nothing can satisfy the bar, the bar is set wrongly.

But the bank has just given you a video call to confirm money is still in the bank. And you're still saying its not enough because it might have been stolen after the call. I assure you that if this scenario ever occurs, your bank will NOT be arranging a private visit of their vault for you.

Wta has been able to talk to her over video call. That's what they mean by confirmation.

You are talking about a woman who has outed herself as a mistress in a Conservative society, and expect her to make herself available to be in the spotlight. That's ridiculous. This isn't even unprecedented. People with far bigger star power have disappeared from the public eye overnight because they've been exposed of being part of an affair.

If they met up with her and she's OK you can still use this logic to say "who's to say they didn't grab her after she met us?"

That's why this is a terrible logic to use.

You're adding a time component to the question, making it philosophical : all confirmations occur in the past.

If we were to use this on everything, we would conclude we are sure of nothing. Last time someone checked in on you, you were an outstanding member of society and law abiding citizen.

But who is to say you haven't fucked a goat this morning? We can't be sure!

I hope you see why that reasoning is pretty bad.

No I'm not.

Read my post again. My point is that wta seems to simultaneously claim that they received confirmation and that its not enough to be a resolution of the issue.

These two things shouldn't be simultaneously possible. So if they're not lying about confirmation, they're pushing the issue in spite of proof otherwise. If they didn't get confirmation, they lied about getting it.

Confirmation means they received proof. So did they or not? Are they lying or acting in bad faith?

Well the lowest hurdle you would have to clear would be to provide some official documentation.

Think : what documentation a bank needs as confirmation that you're you when you are opening an account.

No you can't.

You can send me a claim that you're xi Jinping. To send me confirmation would require you're in a position to send me proof. Which you're not.

This is really basic stuff.

I'm literally quoting from the article when I state that they confirmed it.

So what you're doing now is accusing wta of lying.

That still falls under the definition of confirmed in regards to "safe and comfortable".

So they've confirmed that she is safe and comfortable, but aren't convinced she is safe and comfortable? There's a conflict here.

>The WTA said it had received confirmation Peng was safe and comfortable but were yet to meet with her personally.

Unless their definition of "confirmation" is different from what I was taught, shouldn't this already be resolution.

Yeah just like the animal abuse fans filming those videos of animals getting killed over at national geographic.

Disgusting.

When you're the underdog, you want to increase the variance. Attacking is the correct call I think.

I'm saying that if you classify flights in international airspace as aggressive, don't scoff when others say sailing through international waters are aggressive.

Pick a standard and stick to it.

Adz is self declared and has no legal bearing.

Ita International airspace. You can't complain about planes flying in international airspace as aggressive while at the same time saying ships have right of passage through the heavily contested South China Sea.