7 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

21 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

He can, because you are not correct.  Hong Kong was ceded to the UK, not leased.   The part that was later leased from China was just the New Territories, not the whole of Hong Kong.

Expand  

Point being that the U.K left Hong Kong willingly and were not chased off

Well, that's your point now!  Previously, it was "leased Hong Kong" nonsense!

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

Well, that's your point now!  Previously, it was "leased Hong Kong" nonsense!

I was replying to a posted who claimed the British were chased off from Hong Kong and I replied that the British left Hong Kong willingly after the 100 year lease expired .

   

4 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

7 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Well, that's your point now!  Previously, it was "leased Hong Kong" nonsense!

I was replying to a posted who claimed the British were chased off from Hong Kong and I replied that the British left Hong Kong willingly after the 100 year lease expired .

This is the relevant part of the comment that you posted in reference to Hong Kong in general that I, and someone else, disputed...

"The British ... leased the land from China and the lease expired". 

That was untrue, Hong Kong was not leased from China, only the part that became the New Territories was leased.

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

This is the relevant part of the comment that you posted in reference to Hong Kong in general that I, and someone else, disputed...

"The British ... leased the land from China and the lease expired". 

That was untrue, Hong Kong was not leased from China, only the part that became the New Territories was leased.

The history channel says 

 

" Hong Kong–a small peninsula and group of islands jutting out from China’s Kwangtung province–was leased by China to Great Britain in 1898 for 99 years."

 

 

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/britain-agrees-to-return-hong-kong-to-china

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

fixing computers on exposed rooftops in HK is just asking for trouble

 

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

This is the relevant part of the comment that you posted in reference to Hong Kong in general that I, and someone else, disputed...

"The British ... leased the land from China and the lease expired". 

That was untrue, Hong Kong was not leased from China, only the part that became the New Territories was leased.

Pedantic…

3 hours ago, NextG said:

7 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

This is the relevant part of the comment that you posted in reference to Hong Kong in general that I, and someone else, disputed...

"The British ... leased the land from China and the lease expired". 

That was untrue, Hong Kong was not leased from China, only the part that became the New Territories was leased.

Expand  

Pedantic…

No, accurate.   His claim was wrong.

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, accurate.   His claim was wrong.

Pedantic, because it didn’t and doesn’t matter. 

11 minutes ago, NextG said:

16 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, accurate.   His claim was wrong.

Pedantic, because it didn’t and doesn’t matter. 

Maybe not to you, but that doesn't mean that an accurate correction of a glaringly false claim is pedanticism.

On 10/4/2023 at 11:08 PM, aldriglikvid said:

Another user that has nothing fulfilling to do in life besides sitting on this forum all day and everyday is @bignok - perhaps you could socialize? 

And Mr Robert Smith.

52 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Maybe not to you, but that doesn't mean that an accurate correction of a glaringly false claim is pedanticism.

It wasn't a false claim though , my claim was that the British left   Hong Kong willingly , rather than being kicked out 

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Maybe not to you, but that doesn't mean that an accurate correction of a glaringly false claim is pedanticism.

It’s not ‘glaringly false’ and you do appear to be a pedant in this respect.