I used to think that Lim Sian See was rolling2014 since he liked to use former's material in his discussions. I might've been paranoid and delusional.

I actually enjoy their posts, even if they're not the same person. After all, a one-sided cybertrooper battle is bad in the long run since PR/PH is no angel.

Funny how the battles are no longer over facts but over statements and the way those sentences are constructed and construed.

I think you should give up. 3 posts and he still refuses to accept that the latest challenge which Arul replied and agreed to was a televised talk show and not a debate. Whether or not Arul and the media intentionally turned it into a debate is uncertain at the moment.

He has been consistent that it'll be a talk show to allow 1mdb to answer his questions. It was never a debate. It's Arul and the media who are saying it's a debate all of a sudden. Why is that Tony's fault? He didn't set any condition for the live talk show challenge. You can attack him for not being bold enough but you can't say he's shifting the goal post.

This post has been edited by neoexcaliber: Oct 31 2015, 07:56 PM

2 different issues. I was responding to the debate vs talk show issue.

They are 2 different challenges. The August one was to a dialogue or a debate which Arul did not respond to. The latest one from 2 days ago was a televised talk show challenge that Tony posed to Arul and the latter responded. I think his alleged meetings with both Claire and Justo are irrelevant when the argument is on debate vs talk show.

If you wanna talk about professionalism, shouldn't Najib step down as both PM and FM since he has the ability to hinder investigations into him and his pet project? The issues of Tony's professionalism or conduct are not relevent to your earlier assertion that Tony is chickening out from his challenge. Refer to my earlier reply regarding the 2 different challenges that Joe has also furnished you with. That's like you offering to loan me RM 50 in August but I refuse. You offer to loan me RM 30 in September and I agree but I ask where's the balance RM 20.

This post has been edited by neoexcaliber: Oct 31 2015, 09:12 PM

Doesn't matter what I want. At this moment, Arul agreed to Tony's latest challenge to answer questions on a live talk show and it was not a debate. If Arul did accept Tony's earlier proposal from August, then it's up to Arul to make it clear that it was in response to that and for Tony not to chicken out.

Please read joe's posts. This isn't a question of logic but based on the words used. I don't know who's responsible for the mix up but the challenge issued on October 29 concerned a live talk show.

Since you're using Malaysiakini as your reference, this is from October 29:
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/317595

Arul's reply on the same day:
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/317621

Whether it was the media, Arul or Tony who made the mix up is uncertain. I can't view the entire Malaysiakini transcript but this appeared in Malay Mail:

“Stop giving stupid conditions, accept my challenge like a man and let’s meet on live television,” Pua told a news conference here.
“I am not surprised by his statement accepting my challenge but putting conditions which do not make sense.
“No rule of law says I cannot pursue matters of public interest outside of the PAC,”

Interestingly, the title of the article includes the word 'debate' and I think his first statement on October 29 is quite clear since he mentioned 'live talk show' and not 'debate'.

No mention of the debate is mentioned in this article by the Star on the 29th either:
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2015...a-arul-hitback/

Either way, Tony has fallen for the trap and I'm starting to suspect that Malaysiakini is partly responsible for this mishap.

This post has been edited by neoexcaliber: Oct 31 2015, 09:48 PM

Tony would've earned extra brownie points if he agreed with the debate despite the confusion. I do agree with him that there's nothing much for him to answer other than questions regarding Clare, Justo and the alleged PAC leak which Nur Jazlan has denied.

You've answered your own question.

talk show
noun
noun: talk show; plural noun: talk shows; modifier noun: talk-show; noun: talkshow; plural noun: talkshows

a television or radio show in which various topics are discussed informally and listeners, viewers, or the studio audience are invited to participate in the discussion.

Tony doesn't want it to be a debate like those reported in the media but he could've used a better choice of words.

This post has been edited by neoexcaliber: Oct 31 2015, 10:03 PM

If you found the wikipedia for talk show, then you've answered your own question as well. I don't know if you've watched talk shows before. The guests do question the host but it's usually within the topic.

"A talk show or chat show is a television programming or radio programming genre in which one person (or group of people) discusses various topics put forth by a talk show host."

Compare these 2:

talk show
noun
noun: talk show; plural noun: talk shows; modifier noun: talk-show; noun: talkshow; plural noun: talkshows

a television or radio show in which various topics are discussed informally and listeners, viewers, or the studio audience are invited to participate in the discussion.

de·bate
dəˈbāt/
noun
noun: debate; plural noun: debates

1.
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
synonyms: discussion, discourse, parley, dialogue; More
argument, counterargument, dispute, wrangle, war of words;
argumentation, disputation, dissension, disagreement, contention, conflict;
negotiations, talks;
informalconfab, powwow
"a debate on the reforms"
an argument about a particular subject, especially one in which many people are involved.
"the national debate on abortion"

verb
verb: debate; 3rd person present: debates; past tense: debated; past participle: debated; gerund or present participle: debating

1.
argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.
"the board debated his proposal"
synonyms: discuss, talk over/through, talk about, thrash out, hash out, argue, dispute; More
informalkick around, bat around
"they will debate the future of rail transport"
consider a possible course of action in one's mind before reaching a decision.
"he debated whether he should leave the matter alone or speak to her"
synonyms: consider, think over/about, chew over, mull over, ponder, revolve, deliberate, contemplate, muse, meditate; formalcogitate
"he debated whether to call her"

This isn't about the meaning of words or their synonyms literally but to what set of rules, setting and context they adhere to. For example, the word 'forum' used to mean a physical gathering for a discussion but among the youngsters they would infer it as an online forum. The word forum is also synonymous with court/tribunal but that's not what people usually associate with. By the way, the world talk is also synonymous with discuss.

This post has been edited by neoexcaliber: Oct 31 2015, 10:47 PM

Tony isn't changing the rules at all. There are tons of talk shows where the host asks questions and the guest answers but they're usually pre-recorded. I agree that a live show would definitely be 2-way communication regardless since we're talking about 2 people within the same vicinity talking to each other but it's not the same as debating each other. This is what Tony said:

“It should be a question-and-answer session and not a debate, because I am asking the questions.
“There’s nothing for him (Arul) to ask me,”

It's not the same as Tony explicitly refusing to answer questions outright, which we will not know till the actual show. Tony won't be able to stop Arul from asking him questions anyway.

Does this answer your question? Excerpt from October 29.

“Since Arul proudly proclaimed that there is absolutely no cover-up to 1MDB, may I humbly propose that the 1MDB president attends a ‘live’ talk show which I will host and ask the questions.
“He will be given every opportunity and as much time as he likes to answer these questions.

You guys are free to whack him for not being courageous enough and I agree with that but claiming he's shifting the goal post is untrue.

I see you are also adept at shifting the goal post. The excerpt I've posted and the one you've quoted are from the challenge Tony issued BEFORE Arul responded with his conditions and that excerpt already clearly mentions what kind of talk show it would be. Like I said in the other reply and which most people have already grasped, while there will be 2-way communication the format is not a debate where 2 parties propose arguments and counter them. There's nothing stopping Arul from questioning Tony but the crux of the talk show is still 1mdb and the questions regarding their operations. Here are excerpts from Malaysiakini, although from the article it seems like Tony issued the challenge the night before, I can't find any time reference.

29 Oct 2015, 7:54 am
"Since Arul proudly proclaimed that there is absolutely no cover-up to 1MDB, may I humbly propose that the 1MDB president attends a ‘live’ talk show which I will host and ask the questions.
“He will be given every opportunity and as much time as he likes to answer these questions.

29 Oct 2015, 11:40 am
1MDB president Arul Kanda today accepted DAP Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua's challenge to participate in a live talk show with him but only on the condition the latter resigns from the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

This post has been edited by neoexcaliber: Nov 1 2015, 11:36 AM

He did not explicitly state that he can't be questioned and he did not explicitly state that he can be questioned. The argument was on whether Tony changed his stance after issuing his challenge which is untrue. Can you prove that Tony changed his stance, then? It must be explicitly stated as well.

This post has been edited by neoexcaliber: Nov 1 2015, 11:40 AM

I have a feeling you've already made up your mind and no amount of proof or statements from both Arul and Tony is gonna change that. I can see why joe gave up.

I did not make up any statements or lie. It was an assumption, but the fact remains that Tony did not change the format from a debate to a talk show. The onus is on you to prove otherwise. Tony has clearly mentioned that it'll be a talk show where he'll be the host asking Arul questions regarding 1mdb on October 29, before Arul set some conditions and withdrew those conditions.

Can you explicitly prove that Tony is out to intentionally damage 1mdb's image by quoting any of his previous statements? Or is that an assumption based on his actions and statements so far? An assumption is not an explicit proof, yet you use assumptions in your argument but others can't, eh? Both Arul and Tony are good at reading between the lines, perhaps you should too.

This post has been edited by neoexcaliber: Nov 1 2015, 12:22 PM

There were 2 different challenges. The first one from August was a non-televised (it was not mentioned at all) debate or open dialogue which wasn't accepted. The latest challenge was to attend a live talk show with Tony as the host in response to Arul attending such an event on Bernama TV on the 28th of October and this challenge was posed on the 29th of October 2015 or maybe the night before which I can't verify. It was to this challenge that Arul responded to, set conditions, withdrew those conditions and accepted as is. Whether or not the live talk show is sufficient to deal with this issue a different matter.

Now, did Tony move the goal post/chicken out or were you wrong to assume that when there are press statements and media reports that have consistently mentioned a live talk show?

Of course the date is important. That's the context of this discussion and the challenge Tony made. Both challenges are similar yet different. That's like me offering you a RM 50 loan 4 months ago but you refuse. I offer you a loan for RM 30 today and you accuse me of giving you RM 20 less.

Chronology:
August 14
Tony Pua challenges Arul to a debate or open dialogue

October 28
Arul appears on Bernama TV's special talk show to answer questions on 1mdb

October 29 7.54 am
Tony challenges Arul to a live talk show with him as the host

October 29 11.40 pm
Arul asks Tony to quit the PAC first

October 29 12.20 pm
Tony declines and says PAC is more important

October 31 11:14 am
Arul withdraws conditions, says ok

October 31 11:35 am
Pua re-asserts that it'll be a talk show and not a debate as reported by some media.

I didn't answer your other question because it's not relevant to your initial statement that Tony changed the format from debate to talk show. Like I've said, whether or not it's appropriate or sufficient is another question. Whether or not Tony will refuse to answer questions posed by Arul remains to be seen as his statement so far is only this:

“It should be a question-and-answer session and not a debate, because I am asking the questions. There’s nothing for him (Arul) to ask me,”

He hasn't come out and explicitly stated that Arul cannot ask him questions or that he won't answer them yet. You came to that conclusion based on those 2 sentences but I didn't.

This post has been edited by neoexcaliber: Nov 1 2015, 02:30 PM

I think this statement from Tony a few minutes ago can put this discussion to rest:

“It does not matter who wins or loses in the debate or talk show with Arul. What is important is that the information can be put out there so the people can have a better understanding of the 1MDB issue.”

Tony found his balls.

2 different topic. 2 different challenge. Do not try to link them together. Just like how you can name 2 grandfathers but they're not the same person. I asked you to prove that Tony changed the format, but you couldn't. Besides, Tony's latest statement seems to imply that he'll go ahead even if it's a debate.

This post has been edited by neoexcaliber: Nov 1 2015, 02:56 PM

And I've also shown you proof that Tony challenged Arul to a live talk show on October 29, the day after Arul attended a similar show on Bernama TV. The topic is the same but the challenge is different. 2 different challenges made at 2 different times. Same topic, different setting. I did not say the discussion/live show/debate challenges were on 2 different topics. We can argue on your comprehension all day. I have time.

This post has been edited by neoexcaliber: Nov 1 2015, 03:25 PM

When I said topic, I wasn't referring to the topic of the discussion/debate/live talk show but how the August challenge and the October challenge are 2 separate topics for our discussion. Our discussion, not theirs. Topic 1; August challenge. Topic 2; October challenge.

top·ic
ˈtäpik/
noun
noun: topic; plural noun: topics

a matter dealt with in a text, discourse, or conversation; a subject.
"her favorite topic of conversation is her partner"
synonyms: subject, subject matter, theme, issue, matter, point, talking point, question, concern, argument, thesis, text, keynote
"today's topic is skin care"

Perhaps difficulty distinguishing context? Not to mention you're attacking my sentence instead of proving that the August challenge and the October challenge are the one and the same. I admit that it's partially my fault for not making it clear that it wasn't about the topic of the debate/talk show.

This post has been edited by neoexcaliber: Nov 1 2015, 04:28 PM

I apologize for that mishap. It was my fault for using the word 'topic' in that reply without making it clear what it was and for overlooking your use of that word in your reply. I wholeheartedly agree that the subject of contention between Tony and Arul has always been 1MDB. Now, let's get back to to our discussion. Can you prove that the August challenge and the October challenge are the one and the same? They're related. They're on the same topic which is 1mdb. Yet they're not the same. These are the 2 statements:

August 14:
"So I'm sure Malaysians would be very interested to see an open dialogue or debate between Arul and myself".

October 29:
“Since Arul proudly proclaimed that there is absolutely no cover-up to 1MDB, may I humbly propose that the 1MDB president attends a ‘live’ talk show which I will host and ask the questions.

Do they look exactly the same to you?
Subject: 1mdb.
Participants: Tony Pua & Arul Kandasamy

What about the format?
August 14: Open dialogue or debate
October 29: live talk show



Are you implying that Arul agreed to Tony's August challenge in October? Please take into account these 2 articles from pro-government mainstream newspapers.

http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2015...a-TV-interview/
Arul Kanda Kandasamy has agreed to meet the challenge by Tony Pua to appear on a "live talk show" to dispel any allegations made against 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).
This came after Pua, the DAP national publicity secretary, said Arul had merely "recycled" responses to the allegations during a live interview on Bernama TV, and Malaysians were "no nearer to the truth" on the matter.
Pua said he would host the show and ask the questions, and would give Arul "every opportunity and as much time as he likes to answer these questions".
In an immediate reply, Arul agreed to the challenge.

http://www.nst.com.my/news/2015/10/arul-i-...e-discussion-if
1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) president and group executive director Arul Kanda has accepted DAP member of parliament Tony Pua's challenge to a discussion on live television. In a statement today, Arul said he accepted the challenge and looked forward to answering Pua's questions. Pua had earlier challenged Arul to a live talk show to settle once and for all the allegations leveled against 1MDB. This follows Arul's appearance on Bernama TV last night, in which Arul had addressed several issues concerning the state investment fund.

So if these 2 newspapers and countless others interpreted Arul as accepting Tony's October 29 challenge, why do you claim otherwise?

This post has been edited by neoexcaliber: Nov 1 2015, 05:21 PM