False Logic, Slandering & Mean:
The Buddha said it is always good to give, no matter how little and therefore anyone who advocates the withholding of giving, even if it is state governments, of free water even if it is only $10 a month is incurring karma. Because she says it is wrong for the state government to give free water especially when it may have to import water, it is a pittance for the poor but will cost millions to the state government and water is already dirt cheap compared to London, she is unwittingly incurring karma on herself.
You may think there is nothing intrinsically true or false, right or wrong with what Sing Biz correspondent Pauline Ng wrote and she is entitled to her opinions and but this will be wrong view because whatever she said can be examined and objectively proven to false and wrong and she is slandering the Selangor PR government. In so doing she is deluded, somnolently incurring karma and headed for woe.
What she is saying in her convoluted nice way liberally sprinkled with style intended to impress that is evident even in the body or substance of what she wrote let alone the style that must also be present in the way she will speak is that it is irresponsible or wrong of the PR state government to give the poor free water especially when there is a looming state water shortage that requires conserving water and the import of water from neighbouring Pahang. The rebate saving each consumer $10 is next to nothing or a pittance but instead the state stands to lose millions in revenue as a result. It means more that the state will lose millions than the poor will gain $10 each. Water here is already ‘dirt cheap’ compared to London.
On each count what she stated in her contorted way can be examined and proven to be objectively false.
Only if the Selangor state government is promoting unlimited free water would it be promoting wastage and be profligate in the light of a looming shortage that may necessitate importing water from Pahang but because it is proposing only the first basic 20 million cubic litres will be free and you must waste more than the given free water and therefore must pay if you irresponsibly allowed water to pour water down the drain, the PR free water scheme is not promoting wastage and the issue of looming shortage of water is an issue that does not apply here.
This first 20 million cubic litres of water is only sufficient as bare necessity and does not allow wastage that would require more and payment of the guilty and so she is wrongly accusing the PR government of promoting water wastage in providing basic free water.
What has the issue of having to import water got to do with not charging poorer consumers the first 20 million cubic L of water? You mean just because you have to import water you cannot be charitable and give the underprivileged a bare necessity of free water, you must be so stingy and not be generous?
It is only a person nurtured on a culture of meritocracy in Singapore who has a cold calculating heart that feels the downtrodden should not be assisted in any way, they are not the downtrodden victims of society and are to be blamed for their plight and they must learn to stand on their own feet and be treated as the same as the affluent and pay when to be charitable to the underprivileged is at the heart of all true religions and a caring society.
Rather than the $10-12 individually saved by the poor struggling to make ends meet counting like a drop in the ocean (insignificant) compared to the (significant) millions the state government will lose in revenue as a result of this exercise, she has perverted logic and perception because the opposite is true, the $10-12 will help towards making ends meet for the poor, is a gesture of care for them whilst the millions in lost state revenue is a drop in the ocean for the state government especially in the light of the millions wasted through useless projects and corruption by the previous governments.
If it is merely a savings of $10 per poor person as she contends, isn’t she instead mean or small hearted to quibble and make much about this small gesture by the state government to alleviate the plight of the poor? Drop by drop is the pitcher filled, if you assist the poor $10 here and $10 there, it may add up to quite a bit of assistance and care.
(The Buddha said that even if a man were to throw the rinsings of his food bowl into a pond and say may creatures there derive sustenance from it, there is merit in that act so there is merit in charitably giving $10 of water free. If someone wants to make a gift to another, no matter how small the gift is, you are a fool to advice against being charitable or caring because it is ALWAYS GOOD to give no matter how small the amount and bad to be stingy or not to give and because she is criticizing the move to give free water to the poor, she is unwittingly heaping karma on herself)
You cannot compare the price of water in London with the cost of water here because incomes are much higher there and the costs of living may be much higher there. If you think it is fair justify Malaysians paying more for water just because Londoners pay much more you may have seriously false perception.
FOR A PERSON NURTURED ON A CULTURE OF COLD CALCULATING MERITOCRACY AND ACCUSTOMED TO THE HIGH COSTS OF WATER IN SINGAPORE, SHE MUST VIEW WITH JEALOUSY AND DISLIKE ANY PROPOSAL TO GIVE THE POOR FREE WATER BUT FEEL EVERYONE SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY AND PAY, ESPECIALLY WHEN SINGAPOREANS AND LONDONERS ‘PAY THROUGH THEIR NOSES’ FOR WATER, HOW CAN YOU AND IT IS A GALL TO HER TO SUBSIDIZE WATER. WHAT SHE DOES NOT REALIZE IS THAT HER ARGUMENTS OR LOGIC IS OBJECTIVELY FALSE, SHE HAS FALSE LOGIC AND PERCEPTION THAT WHAT SHE VIEWS IS CORRECT AND THAT IS THE PATH TO FUTURE MAD LOGIC AND PERCEPTION.
Quote: Pauline Ng, KL Correspondent: Similarly, his ally Khalid Ibrahim (colleague is more appropriate than ally, because they are in the same party) wants to give away free water. One of his first pronouncements as the new Selangor chief minister was for each household to be given the first 20 million cubic litres of water free every month. That this suggestion comes on the heels (a nice impressive way of saying ‘follows’, comes on the heels implies very close but the plan to import water was mooted long ago) of a plan to channel water from Pahang to Selangor because of expectations Selangor could face a water shortage in the not-too-distant future given the latter's burgeoning population and industries, underscores the wisdom, or lack of it, behind the proposal.
Water is already unconscionably cheap (what has conscience got to do with cheapness? Just because Singapore is used to expensive water does not mean cheap water is unconscionable here) which is why in Malaysia a lot of it ends up in the drain unnecessarily. To be fair (unnecessary to say to be fair and she may be aping the American ‘lingo’), Mr Khalid appears to want better for the people of Selangor. But he would have done well (telling people what to do that if wrong, incurs karma, why should he have done well to do so?) to consult others on this, such as his fellow coalition partner Charles Santiago of the Democratic Action Party, who has pointed out the RM10-RM12 it would save each household is a drop in the ocean compared to the millions it would cost the state government - money the former non-governmental organisation activist rightly observed would have been better put to use in getting water-harvesting schemes off the ground, for example. (The $10 may mean more to the poor than the millions it will cost the state government, considering how much is lost to corruption and mismanagement in the past)
In a letter to the editor, a foreigner now living in Malaysia revealed his monthly water bills while staying in London was the equivalent of RM600. He is now paying just RM6 in good 'ol Malaysia. His point? Because it costs next to nothing, his family (it may be next to nothing to an arrogant expatriate like him but it is not to those struggling to make ends meet, when next he is born impoverished let me hear him say next to nothing)- previously thrifty in use - has turned careless about the precious commodity (just because water is very cheap does not mean you must waste it and it shows he is a hypocrite who is thrifty out of selfish considerations) . Much like the way Malaysians in the past treated the heavily subsidised fuel.
Is there anyone who upon reading what the reporter above said, could examine it the way I have and come to the conclusions that I have? Are the conclusions I make trivial or false or are they the truths that this world neither sees nor knows?
Long-term pain of populist moves
(Rather than long term pain for populist moves like free basic water and cheaper petrol that is not subsidized but still profitable to the state, they may be stabilizing and shields the economy from violent harmful swings. Rather than long term gains of the cold capitalist way, the capitalist world may be headed for a crash in the long term promoted by excesses committed in the name of capitalism eg a stock and property market and soaring oil prices as a result of evil speculation and manipulation.
By PAULINE NG
KL CORRESPONDENT
LAST week marked the Pakatan Rakyat's (PR) or People's Alliance's 100 days in office in Penang, Selangor, Perak and Kedah - states won in the March 8 general election.
After some five decades of the Barisan Nasional (National Front) coalition's rule, it's too early to judge PR's performance in these states. Its critics maintain there's been more finger-pointing than actual governing. But few can blame the PR states for wanting to conduct a thorough audit, lest they be held liable for worms hidden in the accounts. Grandstanding antics by the federal government haven't helped either.
In any event (it is totally unnecessary and a matter of style to speak of ‘in any event’ as if it does not matter. If it does not matter, why talk about it?), few have had time to ponder its performance, given the early June announcement of humongous (even I do not know what this word means, nor does Microsoft Word) fuel and power hikes of 40-60 per cent - the fuel price increases kicking in (fuel prices don’t kick in, they take effect) immediately and the power rate hikes beginning in July. Individuals and businesses are still reeling (that is an exaggeration or false, I do not see them reeling), and wondering how they can mitigate some of the effects (Unless you see them ‘wondering’ or they tell you so, you are presumptuous to speak of it).
For some industries, the downpour did not end there (do you see a downpour, it is courting mad perception to associate it with a downpour, she likes to use colourful language that is not appropriate) . Those reliant on gas will also need to shell out 2-3 times more as much (shell out is an impressive way to say ‘pay’).
Luck certainly wasn't on the side (this is the language of decorous or nice people, how can she be certain that luck is not on his side and whether luck was involved at all?) of the hapless (whether he is hapless or not is a figment of her imagination and she is straying into false perception and fantasy) Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, oil prices escalating beyond belief soon after he took over office at the end of 2003.
His hand forced (she is speculating and she may be wrong, Badawi’s hand may not be forced), he nonetheless demonstrated real gumption in dismantling the over-two-decade-old policy of cheap fuel - an act which will in all certainty only send his ratings further south (if Malaysia produces all her oil that she is already selling at good profit locally and the current high prices are crazy, she is wrong justify the raising of prices).
Similar populist proposals by the PR leadership could come back to bite them (policies are not animals with teeth to bite and it reflects her aggressive nature).
De facto PR leader Anwar Ibrahim would have Malaysians believe he can reduce the price of fuel should PR come into power. But how he proposes to slash the pump price below the RM1.92 (S$0.80) per litre before it was recently hiked to RM2.70, he has not explained. (she is speaking as if it is incredible for Anwar to do so when it is very much within possibility if Malaysia is self sufficient in oil and it is up to the government to determine a lower price that is still profitable for Petronas)
The logic and wisdom behind such a suggestion has prompted some to question his sincerity in that he appears willing to sacrifice the nation's future on continuing unproductive and unsustainable subsidies in furtherance of his own ambitions (There are indications that the rapid unjustified price rises in the world is seriously deleterious the world economy and so she is deluded to think that such price rises are natural and good when they are manipulated and harmful than a fixed lower price that still gives Petronas good profits).
Similarly, his ally Khalid Ibrahim (colleague is more appropriate than ally, because they are in the same party) wants to give away free water. One of his first pronouncements as the new Selangor chief minister was for each household to be given the first 20 million cubic litres of water free every month. That this suggestion comes on the heels (a nice impressive way of saying ‘follows’) of a plan to channel water from Pahang to Selangor because of expectations Selangor could face a water shortage in the not-too-distant future given the latter's burgeoning population and industries, underscores the wisdom, or lack of it, behind the proposal.
Water is already unconscionably cheap which is why in Malaysia a lot of it ends up in the drain unnecessarily. To be fair, Mr Khalid appears to want better for the people of Selangor. But he would have done well to consult others on this, such as his fellow coalition partner Charles Santiago of the Democratic Action Party, who has pointed out the RM10-RM12 it would save each household is a drop in the ocean compared to the millions it would cost the state government - money the former non-governmental organisation activist rightly observed would have been better put to use in getting water-harvesting schemes off the ground, for example.
In a letter to the editor, a foreigner now living in Malaysia revealed his monthly water bills while staying in London was the equivalent of RM600. He is now paying just RM6 in good 'ol Malaysia. His point? Because it costs next to nothing, his family - previously thrifty in use - has turned careless about the precious commodity. Much like the way Malaysians in the past treated the heavily subsidised fuel. (it may be next to nothing to him but he is showing no consideration for those who are much less fortunate for whom literally every sen counts)
Having seen the early horror (she is presumptuous because not everyone is horrified and if she can be horrified she is capable of suffering and headed for horror) of having to pay so much more for fuel - and it is still not close to market price - PR leaders should have some inkling of how insidious prolonged consumption subsidies can be. They mask true competitiveness, which in Malaysia's case is compounded by policies allowing for low-skills, low-waged workers. Imagine that 'advantage' also being removed (she is being sarcastic or false, she mean disadvantage)?
The very serious hand-wringing (again it is presumptuous to say it is serious handwringing) that is going on now over the end of cheap fuel has led the public to question where the petrodollars earned over the past three decades have gone. Some of the spending is evident - Malaysia has a reasonably good public healthcare system for example - much of it not, or so the average person thinks.
The will to ensure greater transparency in governance and to stamp out corruption - although tougher - should ultimately bring down living costs, and perhaps more importantly, ignite the spirit that collectively the nation can pull through these tough times. Can the unrealistic populist policies? By now it should be obvious they only bring greater pain in the longer term. (If the unfettered rise in petrol prices as a result of speculation is leading free market economies to the brink of disaster, then she is foolish to champion free markets)
Real Gumption?
Quote: His hand forced, he nonetheless demonstrated real gumption in dismantling the over-two-decade-old policy of cheap fuel - an act which will in all certainty only send his ratings further south.
Comment: Gumption apparently means ‘common sense’ and she is applauding Badawi’s move to dismantle the policy of cheap fuel.
If Anwar can promise lower fuel prices it means that raising petrol prices may not be forced but Badawi had a choice and chose to exercise it and therefore she is false misleading others to say Badawi’s hand is forced.
She is applauding the dismantling of the policy of cheap fuel. If the current high oil prices are artificial, the result of speculation and even manipulation on international oil markets and threaten the capitalist economies and Malaysia is not subsidizing petrol but merely electing not to profit too much from its populace, she has got it all wrong to imply that charging world rates is correct and it is bad to subsidize petrol locally when it may not be a subsidy at all.
Water is unconscionably cheap:
The cheapness or expensiveness of water never has any relationship with conscience. It is only when a matter arising physically (eg slap) or materially (eg cheating) harms or kills another does conscience or the lack of comes into play.
The cheapness of water does not harm anybody, if the state government want to charge less or not charge, who are you to quibble what is its right?
THUS SHE MAY THINK SHE IS VERY SMART USING HIGH SOUNDING WORDS BUT SHE IS TALKING NONSENSE THAT WILL DESCEND INTO MADNESS.
UNCONSCIONABLY CHEAP SOUNDS NICE OR IMPRESSIVE BUT IT IS FALSE.
Water can be unconscionably expensive:
If you are getting your water free and charging others exorbitantly or through your nose for it, then that is unconscionable.
If someone want to give you free water that he paid much for, it is not unconscionable but an act of sacrifice or merit.
Petrol is unconscionably too high:
Compared to its cost of production the current global petrol price may be unconscionably high, it is exorbitant reaping unjustified excessive profits to producers and so if Pauline Ng thinks that if it is the current market price it must be fair and everyone should abide it, she is deluded to perceive what is exorbitant is justified and the low prices in Malaysia as unnatural and breeds the lack of competitiveness.
Markets are not always right and often wrong:
It is a delusion to think the market is always right because markets are not guided by genuine reason but driven by emotions, greed for profit and fear of loss, a constant battle between buyers and sellers, between different buyers and sellers and so to think that because the price of petrol is such it must be the correct or fair price.
Not only must markets be regulated but they must be policed stringently to weed out crooks and fraud.
Style means more to them than substance:
Often their style or how they say things, the stylish or high sounding words they use to impress others is more important than the substance of what they say. They give much thought to how they will phrase their messages so that it is impressive rather than examine the veracity of what they are saying.
Mud slinging:
Badawi: If Datuk Yong Teck Lee was not greedy, he could have played a significant role in bringing positive development to Sabah, said Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
It is false perception that will end in mad perception to think Yong’s greed is connected to questions about his leadership.
What Badawi is doing is angrily attacking his assailant, trying to besmirch his integrity before the public instead of speaking and behaving in a manner that will vindicate confidence in his leadership.
This is a tit for tat rules logic that is a program or plan usually copied from others based on force or emotion not reason as foolish people think. You attack me I attack you, it is all about force or knee jerk reflex.
MAKE SURE YOUR LEADERSHIP IS IMPECCABLE OR BEYOND REPROACH. YOU ARE NOT CORRUPT, HAVE NOT ABUSED YOUR POSITION AND SLEEPING ON THE JOB OTHERWISE BY SLINGING MUD AT OTHERS INSTEAD OF CORRECTING YOUR OWN DEFICIENCIES YOU ARE ASKING FOR DIVINE JUDGMENT THAT IS FAR WORSE THAN HUMAN PUNISHMENT.
Has Badawi himself done his part?
By saying that Yong could have done more to bring positive development to Sabah if he had not been greedy, Badawi must make sure that he has been fair, has done his part within his powers to bring development to Sabah and not neglected or even gone against its interests.
If there are many things he could have done to develop Sabah and he has not done so, it is best he admit it and start restitution than to attack Yong for the same.
The correct and wrong reply to an accusation:
Whenever someone accuses you of something the correct reply that is the way to maintaining sanity is to answer the allegations, the wrong reply that is the way to mad logic and perception is to attack the other person that does not answer the allegation and indicate the allegation might have basis.
ANYONE WHO ANSWERS INCORRECTLY TO AN ACCUSATION IS COURTING MAD LOGIC AND PERCEPTION THAT WHAT IS NOT THE CORRECT ANSWER IS CORRECT.
SLINGING MUD CASTING ASPERSION AT THE OTHER PERSON IS THE WRONG REPLY TO HIS ALLEGATION AND YOU ARE COURTING FUTURE MAD LOGIC AND PERCEPTION THAT YOUR REPLY IS CORRECT WHEN IT IS NOT.
Underscoring the wisdom or lack of it:
Quote: That this suggestion comes on the heels (a nice impressive way of saying ‘follows’) of a plan to channel water from Pahang to Selangor because of expectations Selangor could face a water shortage in the not-too-distant future given the latter's burgeoning population and industries, underscores the wisdom, or lack of it, behind the proposal.
“Underscoring the wisdom or lack of it” is a style of speech that is false and contradictory, not a specific to an occasion substance of speech that she was not the first to use but she must have read it elsewhere, find it attractive, memorized it to be regurgitated and so she is a rehashing robot not just here but everywhere else.
There is a generic style that goes like this: “Underscore the XXX or lack of XXX” that captivates stylish people who think it is full of meaning when it is nonsense and contradictory.
What she intended to say is that it underscores (another stylish substitute for emphasizing) the lack of wisdom but she need to mislead others by first saying wisdom and then correcting herself to say it is actually ‘lack of wisdom’ not ‘wisdom’.
She is practicing controlled conflict that she wants to share with others and will descend into uncontrolled conflict in the future and for wanting others to experience conflict she has karmic debts.
Shirking responsibility in vain:
Quote: The logic and wisdom behind such a suggestion has prompted some to question his sincerity in that he appears willing to sacrifice the nation's future on continuing unproductive and unsustainable subsidies in furtherance of his (Anwar) own ambitions.
She might think she is merely quoting the opinions of others that if false and malicious slanders Anwar but in so quoting and if she secretly shares the sentiment, she is foolishly trying to absolve herself of blame because she is guilty of slander if Anwar’s decision to lower the price of petrol is not to court popularity or gain power but is viable and even beneficial to the people and thence the economy.
If Anwar is sincere, by quoting so you want to influence readers to think that as a result of trying to lower petrol prices, Anwar is not sincere, pandering to popularity.
Practicing the unnecessary is the path to certain madness:
Whatever a person says or does, HOW he says or does it can be examined to determine if it is necessary or not. If it is unnecessary he is practicing controlled madness that will descend into uncontrolled madness and the fact that you insist it is necessary only exacerbates your deluded condition.
Quote: In any event, few have had time to ponder its performance, given the early June announcement of humongous fuel and power hikes of 40-60 per cent - the fuel price increases kicking in immediately and the power rate hikes beginning in July.
You can remove ‘in any event’ and what is said does not lose any meaning and so it is an adornment or style of speech, and she is practicing controlled madness. The fact that she and you insist that it is necessary to say, ‘in any event’ only underscores the intensity of your false perception and logic.
No need to underscore:
There is no need to underscore the lack of wisdom but it is just unwise and so it is that stylish people must pad up their speech to be impressive.
It suffices to say “This suggestion is unwise when it comes on the heels of a plan to channel water from Pahang to Selangor because of expectations Selangor could face a water shortage.
THERE IS NO NEED TO UNDERSCORE THE WISDOM OF IT, JUST SAY IT IS UNWISE. IT IS A PONDEROUS OR CONVOLUTED WAY OF SPEAKING NECESSITATED BY A NEED TO APPEAR IMPRESSIVE MORE THAN YOU TRULY ARE JUST AS SOME WOMEN FALSELY PAD THEIR BRAS TO SINFULLY MISREPRESENT THEMSELVES.
JUST BECAUSE SELANGOR MAY HAVE TO IMPORT WATER DOES NOT MAKE IT UNWISE TO BE CHARITABLE TO GIVE A BASIC AMOUNT OF WATER TO THE POOR TO ASSIST THEM FINANCIALLY. THAT YOU MAY HAVE TO IMPORT OR PAY FOR WATER IS AN EXCUSE TO BE STINGY, TO BE MEAN AND CHARGE OTHERS INDISCRIMINATELY.
That too is madness:
If there is no need to underscore the lack of wisdom, only necessary to say it is unwise you are saying something that is unnecessary ‘underscoring’ that is the way to madness.
It is your considerable at present indomitable will of self preservation that ensures you maintain a semblance of sanity now but as you continue to condition yourself to falsity and the unnecessary and your vitality ebb with age, you have a certain appointment with madness.
The purpose of underscoring is to be impressive and because it is false and for show you are practicing controlled madness in the name of courting popularity that you accuse others (eg Anwar) of.
Badawi Not A Man Of Truth:
Quote: “During the last general election, they made all kinds of promises but until today they have not fulfilled any. If they want to reduce fuel prices, let them provide the subsidy to reduce fuel prices in Selangor and Perak first.”
Comment: The opposition has fulfilled some of their promises like abolishing summons and providing free water in Selangor and so in saying they have not fulfilled any promises Badawi is slandering with serious consequences for him.
His challenge for them to reduce fuel prices is an unfair one that is not achievable because only the federal government controls the funds necessary to reduce fuel prices.
If he knows the federal government is not in truth subsidizing or using actual money to pay the difference in price and he expects the state governments to fork out money, then he is issuing an unfair or false challenge with grave divine consequences for him.
IF HE HAS PROVEN HIMSELF TO BE NOT TRUTHFUL IN SAYING THE OPPOSITION HAS NOT FULFILLED ANY PROMISES AND TO BE FAIR IN CHALLENGING THE OPPOSITION TO REDUCE STATE FUEL PRICES IN THEIR STATES, HE CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO BE TRUTHFUL AND FAIR ELSEWEHRE.
Cheapness is only unconscionable to unabashed profiteers:
Only if you are an unabashed selfish profiteer out to extract a pound of flesh selling to others or you have perverse logic will it be unconscionable to sell anything cheap and thus by using the fashionable or stylish term ‘unconscionably cheap’ you are unwittingly acknowledging yourself as a shameless capitalist out to make big money.
Of course you may deny that and say instead that it is unconscionably cheap because expensive water promotes thrift and is environmentally ‘correct’ but they are not true reasons but excuses.
Something can only be unconscionably expensive in that it unfairly profiteers but never truly unconscionably cheap because cheapness never disadvantages the other party and the ultimate cheapness is when an item is free and that means it is a gift and it is always good to give whose rewards depend on the motive of the giver. For instance if the motive is to entice you to buy (buy three get one free) or it is a gift on condition that you buy, you have surplus useless stock you want to get rid of, then the merit in giving or providing something free is much diminished.
Thus to say that water in Selangor is already unconscionably cheap is always to say something that is false, to unwittingly acknowledge yourself as an unabashed profiteering capitalist or manifest perverse logic that you need to make water expensive to promote thrift and save the environment.
Jane Lived To The Fullest:
In their effort to be effusive in the praise of someone who was some sort of celebrity who has departed, people perceive they are good in saying someone has lived to the fullest and it is meritorious for someone to live life to the fullest when it is the opposite.
Jesus said you should deny yourself, carry your cross and go with him and you cannot be denying yourself if you live life to the fullest.
THUS IT IS NOT PRAISE OR GOOD TO SAY SOMEONE LIVED LIFE TO THE FULLEST BUT IF TRUE, YOU ARE SAYING SHE IS A PERSON WHO WILL NOT DENY HERSELF, SHE IS HEADED FOR PERDITION NOT SAFETY AFTER DEATH. YOU NEVER ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO LIVE LIFE TO THE FULLEST UNLESS YOU WANT BAD KARMA YOURSELF BUT YOU ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DENY THEMSELVES.
HERE AS IN MANY PLACES PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE DOING GOOD SAYING SOMEONE HAS LIVED LIFE TO THE FULLEST BUT THEY ARE DELUDED AND INSTEAD HEAPING KARMA ON THEMSELVES AND ENCOURAGING OTHERS NOT TO DENY THEMSELVES.
Not so much but so little:
It is not so much for Malaysia’s press freedom but so little for Malaysia’s press freedom.
So much for Malaysia’s press freedom is said falsely to be sarcastic and because people enjoy being stirred emotionally they find the statement that stirs their mockery meaningful when it is false or what is meant is the opposite, so little for Malaysia’s press freedom.
It cannot be meant that Malaysia’s press freedom is much when prominent news that the wife of the deputy PM was present at a murder scene is ignored by the press but it is so little for Malaysia’s press freedom when prominent news about the wife of the deputy PM was present at a murder scene is ignored.
Today’s Star has cautiously mentioned about the court statement but only mentioned it involved a prominent lady without mentioning details of the allegations.
IT AGAIN REFLECTS ORDINARY PEOPLE’S BEING INURED TO FALSITY, THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF FALSITY THAT THEY SEE NOTHING WRONG BUT SEE IT AS TRUE THE SARCASTIC STATEMENT ‘SO MUCH FOR MALAYSIA’S PRESS FREEDOM’.
Speaking against someone:
Speaking is opening your mouth and articulating something, and so speaking against someone is articulating a view against someone or disagreeing. Whether your speaking against is forceful (angry) or gentle is a matter of style that is meaningless and all about how you utilize force when you speak and you are a fool if you perceived that if you speak against someone ‘gently’ or softly you are being good. What matters is whether what you say is true or false, harmful or benevolent, not how musically gentle you spoke it. If what you say is nonsense, it is still nonsense no matter how gently you say it.
Whenever anyone speaks against another on any matter, his own view may be correct or wrong and he is speaking against another person whose view on that matter may be unique or it may be shared by many others that may be correct or wrong.
Because the views people can hold in this world are seldom if ever unique, there are others with the same views and they are usually if not always flawed if not totally wrong, when you speak against them (even if you yourself have a wrong or flawed view on that matter), you are yourself false speaking against falsity.
Because nobody speaks the way and what I speak, anyone who speaks against me is speaking specifically against me and nobody else, because nobody else speaks like me.
If what I speak on any matter is the truth then everyone who speaks differently on the matters I dwell have wrong view because in any matter there can only be one correct view, anything else that departs or disagrees with that view must be wrong and according to the Buddha, wrong view is not harmless but there are two destinations for wrong view: hell or the animal womb.
When you speak against another person you are not speaking specifically against him because there are many others who share his view on that matter and if his view is false (as is likely if not certainly), you are merely speaking against what is false, a case of one person with false view (you) speaking against another person with a different false view that is not exclusively his but shared by many others in this world.
IF WHAT I SAY ON A MATTER IS TRUE THEN ANYONE WHO SPEAKS ON THAT MATTER THAT DIFFER IS WRONG OR DEVIANT AND IF NOBODY ELSE ESPOUSES MY VIEW THEN YOU ARE SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY AGAINST ME IN RELATION TO THAT VIEW THAT IF TRUE, YOU ARE SPEAKING AGAINST THE TRUTH AND WHOEVER SPEAKS AGAINST TRUTH TO UPHOLD FALSITY WILL GO THE WAY OF FALSITY AND IF THAT IS TORMENT AND INSANITY, THAT IS WHAT YOU FOOLISHLY OR DEFIANTLY WILLED FOR YOURSELF.
WHEN YOU SPEAK AGAINST ME (DISAGREE WITH ME) YOU ARE SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY AGAINST ME (BECAUSE THERE IS NO ONE IN THIS WORLD WHO ESPOUSES MY VIEWS) AND IF MY VIEWS HAPPEN TO BE CORRECT, THEY DESCRIBE THE TRUTH AS IT ACTUALLY IS, THEN YOU ARE SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY AGAINST TRUTH THAT HAS SO FAR BEEN DENIED YOU, NOT MADE KNOWN TO YOU AND SINCE YOU DISAGREE WITH TRUTH WHEN IT IS MADE KNOWN TO YOU, YOU WILL NOT BE FORGIVEN IF IN ADDITION TO DISAGREEING WITH ME, YOU HAVE DONE A LOT OF HARM TO OTHERS IN YOUR MISGUIDED WAY AND ARE UNREPENTANT OR SEE NO WRONG WHEN THERE IS COMPLETE WRONG. IF IT MEANS YOU CAN AND WILL HAVE TO PAY IN PAIN AND SUFFERING FOR YOUR DEBTS, THEN THAT IS YOUR LOT FOR DISAGREEING AND SPEAKING AGAINST ME OR THE TRUTH THAT I SPEAK THAT YOU THINK IS WRONG AND YOUR VIEW SHARED BY YOUR COHORTS THAT DIFFERS FROM MINE IS CORRECT.
Coming to the wrong conclusions:
Given facts, stylish emotional people have a tendency to come to wrong conclusions far more than they realize because a lot of the conclusions they perceive as correct are actually incorrect.
Coming to the wrong conclusions from given facts is actually a result of giving excuses or ascribing false reasons for what happened (eg you did not attend function because you were sick) and because people tender excuses far more than they are aware, they also come to wrong conclusions far more than they are aware.
Thus asked, “Everyone shits and whose shit smells nice?” they come to the wrong conclusion that shit is neither good nor bad (harmful), since everybody shits, just shut up and join in or no, my shit though smelly is not as bad when the correct conclusion is that everyone shits and it is smelly and harmful, should not be upheld and we should refrain from shit if possible and deny ourselves and extricate ourselves from this world where everyone shits.
And what is this shit that everyone produces that is possible not to produce?
This shit that everyone produces is the style in their speech and actions that is nothing more than how they use force to forcefully stretch their syllables or units of motion, change speed and loudness within and between syllables that kills themselves and others with stress, restlessness, distraction, sadness and feeling hurt.
The fool will say yes everyone has style, I don’t like some styles but my style is charming, benevolent and I am doing good to others. The stress I experience is because I am so good, I go out of my way to stress myself in order to benefit others.
The wise or discerning person will conclude that everyone has style or stretch their syllables, change speed and loudness and that is stressful and meaningless and it is correctible and I will deny myself by not expressing style and say goodbye to this world of falsity and mutual harm.
Not just robots:
Not only are all ordinary or stylish emotional people robots, they have great faith and grim determination despite great stress, restlessness and inability to concentrate to continue behaving as robots which is the only way they know how to behave and they have never behaved otherwise than as robots.
How is one said to be a robot?
Anyone whose speech and actions are according to a plan that exists in their minds that they keep rehashing or repeating from to meet the demands of situations at hand is a robot programmed to say or do certain things in certain ways in response to certain events that have some similarities and differences from others but is always consistent almost to perfection in him.
For those who are undiscerning, people are spontaneous, ‘unique’ and alive but to those who discern, who see things clearly as they actually, all stylish animated people are robots always saying and doing the same old things in the same old way and whatever new things they say or do must be copied from others or recombined from pre-existing pieces in their minds, memorized and then replayed from memory.
Thus when a medical student learns how to act like a doctor, he watches seniors behaving, selects the ones he likes to imitate, memorize and reproducing first haltingly even as he commences for the first time behave like a doctor and with increasing practice to become refined until he does not even need to pay attention.
EVEN WHEN A ROBOT LEARNS A NEW ACT EG MEDICAL STUDENT LEARNING TO SPEAK LIKE A DOCTOR, HE IS FIRST MEMORIZNG AND REPRODUCING FROM MEMORY JUST AS A THREE HEAD CASSETTE RECORDER IS RECORDING WITH THE RECORD HEAD AND PLAYING BACK FROM THE PLAYBACK HEAD EVEN AS IT IS RECORDING TO TAPE.
WHATEVER A ROBOT LEARNS HOW TO SAY OR DO MUST FIRST BE COMMITTED TO MEMORY AND THEN REPRODUCED FROM THAT RECORDING, ROBOTS CANNOT SPEAK OR DO THINGS OTHER THAN WHAT IS RECORDED OR INSTRUCTED BY THE MENTAL INSTRUCTIONS IN THEIR HEADS. IF YOU THINK STYLISH PEOPLE CAN BEHAVE SPONTANEOUSLY WITHOUT DEPENDING ON A COPY OR MOULD IN THEIR HEAD, YOU MAY BE RIGHT OR DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SPEAKING ABOUT.
THE CONSISTENT BRAND OF SUBSTANCE AND STYLE THAT DIFFERS FROM OTHERS BUT IS ALWAYS THE SAME IN THAT PERSON CANNOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT REHASHING FROM A COPY IN THE MIND AND BECAUSE ALL STYLISH PEOPLE HAVE A CONSISTENT STYLE THEY MUST BE ROBOTS.
JUST AS THEY DO NOT REALIZE THEY ARE PURELY REHASHING OR BEING A ROBOT WHEN THEY ARE SINGING A SONG WHOSE TUNE AND LYRICS ARE PREDETERMINED AND THEY ARE MERELY REHASHING ROBOTICALLY, THEY ARE UNAWARE THAT THE WAY THEY ALWAYS SPEAK AND DO THINGS IS ALWAYS REHASHED ROBOTICALLY AND THEY ARE (OVERRATED) BIOLOGICAL ROBOTS.
NOT ONLY ARE THEY ROBOTS, THEY ARE DEFIANT, SEE NOTHING WRONG, HAVE GREAT FAITH IN THE WAYS THEY BEHAVE EVEN THOUGH THEY SUFFER GREAT STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT OFTEN THREATEN TO DRIVEN THEM MAD OR VIOLENT.
Whenever a person sings he is behaving as a robot:
The plan of any song is its sequence of musical notes accompanied by lyrics that have already been predetermined that in order for anyone to reproduce, he must commit both tune and lyrics to memory and rehash from memory and therefore whenever a person sings he is functioning purely as a robot.
ALTHOUGH A SINGER MIGHT JAZZ THINGS UP, HE OR SHE HAS NO SAY OVER THE LYRICS AND TUNE OF A SONG THAT LIKE IT OR NOT HE MUST MEMORIZE AND REPRODUCE FAITHFULLY FROM MEMORY, EVEN IF HE MODIFIES THE LYRICS AND TUNE HE IS STILL MEMORIZING AND SINGING HIS MODIFIED VERSION.
JUST AS HE IS TOTALLY UNAWARE THAT HE IS FUNCTIONING PURELY AS A ROBOT WHEN HE IS SINGING, HE IS SIMILARLY UNAWARE THAT BEING A ROBOT IS THE USUAL WAY HE CONDUCTS HIMSELF IN RELATION TO WHATEVER IMPINGES HIS CONSCIOUSNESS EXTERNALLY OR INTERNALLY.
NOBODY SAYS WHAT I SAY ABOVE AND SO IT MAY BE RIGHT OR WRONG. IF IT IS RIGHT AND YOU SPEAK AGAINST IT, YOU ARE SPEAKING AGAINST THE TRUTH THAT IF IT IS CRUCIAL, YOU ARE ASSIGNING YOURSELF TO TORMENT TO CONTINUE EXISTING AS A ROBOT EVEN FOR ANOTHER ETERNITY FIRST AS ANIMALS AND THEN AS HUMANS WHEN THE AGE IS COMING TO AN END.
What is the danger of being a robot?
Apart from suffering constant stress, restlessness, distraction, sadness and vulnerability to hurt, the danger of being a robot is that it is not you but the copy in the mind that is the origin of your actions and with practice it can bypass you and activate inappropriately against your approval and should the mental jukebox become corrupt as it will with old age, it will seize you to activate speech and motion that is totally inappropriate that you are then powerless to stop.
Anyone who is a robot whether he can see or not, will admit or not must suffer from these eight madnesses:
Mad stress,
Mad restlessness,
Mad distraction or inability to concentrate, mind scattered,
Mad sadness, hurt and emotions (like and dislike),
Mad violence (it is force that powers robotic actions and it is force that is the source of violent urges that must assail all robots)
Mad rote behaviour (eg urge to utter profanities)
Mad logic,
Mad perception.
Whatever is forceful is conditioning that gets easier to arouse to more intense levels that gets harder to shake off and so because stress, restlessness, distraction, sadness, hurt and emotions, rote behaviour, false logic & perception are derived from force they are conditioning that will descend into insanity unless the person turns back.
Speak against me by all means:
Speak against me by all means but make sure you are not a robot because if you are a robot, no matter who you think you are and how good and in control of your destiny you think you are, you are doomed to certain future insanity, to mad stress, restlessness, distraction, violence, rote behaviour (‘good morning, how are you’ or ‘cheers’), mad logic and perception, mad emotions (sadness, hurt, like and dislike) if what I say that nobody else will tell you is correct.
Jesus: Therefore I tell you, every (not some) sin and blasphemy will (not may) be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever (anyone who) speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
Jesus: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor (like Jesus was a counselor, a person who came), to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive (Jesus said this world cannot receive him), because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells (literally will live amongst) with you, and will be in you.
"These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit (The counselor is the Holy Spirit), whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you (if the church has brought you remembrance of what Jesus taught, it would not be necessary).
But when the Counselor comes (he will not come immediately), whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning.
But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your hearts. Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
And when he comes, he will convince the world (if I have convinced you as no one has done before, I will have superseded the counselor) concerning sin and righteousness (goodness) and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. (When the counselor comes, it will be time for mankind to be judged)
"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. (Only a consciousness change that the counselor will initiate would be enabling and I was the trigger of consciousness changes that swept around the world after 1977 and in recent years) When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority (he appears to be someone speaking on his own authority), but whatever he hears he will speak (if the counselor knows everything, he will not need to hear and then speak) and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you
Jokes for you and me:
I was sent an email purported with jokes for you and me by a regular recipient of my emails.
If he had understood what I write, he would not be appreciating jokes and sending the email to me and it is because he does not understand, he thinks it is good clean fun that he sends it to me.
There are no jokers in heaven and jokes are not appreciated in heaven. If you are disappointed then you will go to the destinations where there are plenty of jokers namely hell or the animal womb.
You do not believe that joking and appreciating jokes is appreciating falsity and laughing at the misfortune of others but if that is the case, then you are not going anywhere near heaven and if that means another eternity of suffering wandering as animals then that is your lot.
In order to appreciate jokes you must stir up your mental force to be attracted to and laugh at the matter at hand and that is conditioning your mind to force and agitation that becomes increasingly compelling that will end in insanity. Further by wanting others to appreciate jokes you also want others to suffer and that is karma which is not the way to heaven.
Beings are detained in this world as a result of foolishness and wickedness. Some beings are more foolish or vulnerable to falsity than wicked whilst some beings are more wicked than foolish.
Being foolish or gullible or susceptible to falsity is not blameless but blameworthy. It is because a being is eager to accept things, to say or do things that he did not see or know as true in the name of getting along, to profit, to impress, please, deceive, intimidate and dominate others that he is foolish or susceptible to falsity. Once he accepts falsity, because falsity is based on force and conditioning, his mind becomes increasingly cluttered with beliefs that are false that he holds as true and he becomes deluded, even incurably deluded with so many different conflicting beliefs he cannot tell head from tail.
There is another being who is more wicked than foolish. He enjoys making others suffer and wants to deceive and harm even kill others. He must also be foolish because it is impossible to harm others without harming self, but in his own way he is shrewd, only that he is motivated to harm or kill others.
EVEN THOSE WHO THINK THEY ARE VERY GOOD AND INTELLIGENT WHO HAVE REGULARLY RECEIVED MY EMAILS DO NOT UNDERSTAND MY MESSAGES AS MANIFEST BY THEIR CONDUCT AND IT REFLECTS THEIR UNDERSTANDING IS NOT TRULY GENUINE BUT PROGRAMMED BECAUSE IF THEY UNDERSTOOD THEY WOULD HAVE STOPPED HAVING STYLE, STOPPED JOKING AND BE INTERESTED IN MATERIAL THINGS BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY TO MADNESS AND EVEN ANOTHER ETERNITY OF PERDITION.
Why they do not understand:
Just as a camera with its lens out of focus cannot image an object clearly, just as a distorted mirror or flexible lens cannot focus properly, the constant bombardment of stress, restlessness and distraction (division of their consciousness between the simultaneous substance and style) is a cocktail too potent to permit beings under their spell to see and understand things as they truly are.
Because all beings express style, constant forceful stretching, changing speed and loudness and they are bombarded by the same from everyone else here, their minds are seized by constant stress, restlessness and division of the concentration that never fall below a critical level that does not permit them to truly see and understand, whatever understanding they have are copied from others, cobbled by themselves from bits and pieces borrowed from others and rehashed to explain things, not specific case by case working out or understanding what is happening.
People’s minds are often too distracted or divided to enable them to understand things and they are filled with delusions, false beliefs that they have accepted as true and they are conceited or opinionated, they think they are perfectly capable of reasoning and their explanations are correct to be amenable to change. Further they are not as good or scrupulous as they like to think and they possess ill will, the urge to attack and oppose others and ideas that are alien to their creeds.
SO LONG AS THEY REFUSE TO PAY ATTENTION TO MAKE SUSTAINED EFFORT TO WEED OUT THEIR CONSTANT STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CHANGES OF SPEED AND LOUDNESS AND THEY EVEN GAIN PERVERSE PLEASURE FROM DOING SO, SO LONG WILL THEIR CONCENTRATION BE PERMANENTLY DIVIDED BETWEEN THE SIMULTANEOUS SUBSTANCE AND STYLE PRESENT IN THEIR SPEECH, THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS AND THUS PERMANENTLY DIVIDED THEY CANNOT UNDERSTAND AND NOT UNDERSTANDING THEY ARE HEADED FOR ANOTHER ETERNITY OF PERDITION.
The Buddha said there have been innumerable eons and each eon lasts innumerable years and you have shed your own blood greater than the four great oceans, a being who has not been a father, mother, sibling in some past life is hard to find and yet you are still here is a reflection that it is very hard for beings trapped in the lower realms to turn to be healed. They are deluded that they are right, they understand and can see very well when they don’t and as a result they must be allowed to wallow in the mire.
Jesus spoke of those chosen out of this world that indicates that the vast majority that are not chosen are beyond help; incurable even for many more eons to come.
NOBODY ENJOYS STRESS, RESTLESSNESS, DISTRACTION, SADNESS AND HURT BUT THEY ALL SUFFER EVEN TO UNBEARABLE HOMICIDAL OR SUICIDAL LEVELS AND THERE IS NO OTHER CAUSE OF THIS THAN THE INCESSANT BOMBARDMENT OF STYLE OR FORCEFUL STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE PRESENT IN THEIR SPEECH AND MOTION AND SO NOBODY WHO TRULY UNDERSTANDS WILL CONTINUE TO STRETCH SYLLABLES, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS AND IT IS A REFLECTION THAT PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE GENUINE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY CONTINUE TO HAVE STYLE EVEN AFTER I HAVE POINTED IT OUT IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS WHAT STYLE IS.
Practicing controlled madness:
He is pursing his lips so tightly that his mouth is contorted in shape and it is involuntary, driven by the intense stirring of his mental force as a result of a certain thought.
His pursing his lips so tightly may be to express dislike, doubt or just to impress but because they are meaningless, he is practicing controlled madness that will end in madness.
You have not gone mad yet so do not be so sure you won’t mind being mad. To be mad can be even helplessly tormenting.
If he move his lips to speak or chew then he is using his lips purposely but to purse his lips so intensely is purposeless and reflects involuntary intense mental force rising in his mind.
IF YOU THINK HIS EXPRESSION IS MEANINGFUL, SERVES USEFUL FUNCTION THEN YOU MAY BE RIGHT OR WRONG. IF YOU ARE WRONG THEN IT IS WRONG VIEW THAT THE BUDDHA SAID IS THE WAY TO HELL OR THE ANIMAL WOMB NOT HEAVEN.
I SAY IT IS MEANINGLESS AND HE CANNOT HELP IT OR TO EXPRESS DISLIKE THAT IS NOT REASON BUT A REPULSIVE STIRRING OF HIS MENTAL FORCE AND HE IS HEADED FOR TORMENT.
Bohong But Who:
I watched Najib refuting charges by Raja Petra and the caption seems to say he accuses the latter of lying.
There are no perfect lies and no matter how slick a liar is, there are tell tale signs in expressions and the way it is said that tells the discerning that the person is not quite telling the truth.
You can see from his expressions, rapidly shifting eyes, a facial demeanour that is not his usual smiling confident self but uncomfortable, occasional suppressed tongue poking that he is not quite telling the truth.
To ordinary people who come to the wrong conclusions far more than they realize, who are themselves dishonest and therefore sympathize with him, it is understandable that he should be uneasy because he is under attack, his reputation is at stake but to one discerning, it is an indication that what he is saying is not quite true.
The Buddha said telling lies can send one to hell, especially if you are a lowly person who has done little or no good and hence if what is said is not true and you slander another person by accusing him of lying then you are setting yourself up for agony that is in addition to the agony of being involved in Altanturya’s murder.
Ordinary people actually have a full house, they indulge in all the sins listed below and are in grave danger of hell and another eternity of perdition:
Vipaka Sutta: Results
"Monks, the taking of life -- leads to hell, rebirth as a common animal, the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span.
"Stealing -- leads to hell, rebirth as a common animal, the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to the loss of one's wealth.
"Illicit sexual behavior -- is something that leads to hell, rebirth as a common animal, the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to rivalry & revenge.
"Telling falsehoods -- leads to hell, rebirth as a common animal, the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to being falsely accused.
"Divisive tale-bearing leads to hell, rebirth as a common animal, the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to the breaking of one's friendships.
"Harsh speech -- leads to hell, rebirth as a common animal, the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to unappealing sounds.
"Frivolous chattering -- leads to hell, rebirth as a common animal, the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to words that aren't worth taking to heart.
"The drinking of fermented & distilled liquors -- leads to hell, rebirth as a common animal, the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to mental derangement."
Why is Najib not angry?
A person in his position accustomed to getting what he wants, if he is truly innocent of such a serious accusation, he would be outraged and displaying his anger for all to see ‘and more’ if that was possible.
Thus the fact that he was subdued, even uneasy suggest there must be fire where there is smoke.
IF HE WAS INNOCENT, HE WOULD BE BARELY ABLE TO RESTRAIN HIS ANGER OR OUTRAGE AND THE FACT THAT HE MADE A MUTED DENIAL AND COUNTER ACCUSATION INDICATES THERE IS MORE TO IT THAN APPARENT.
Ingenious operation:
Quote: It was an ingenious operation where thieves coated eight CCTV screens with black paint to prevent the devices from recording them robbing three automated teller machines of more than RM600,000 at a bank here.
Comment: It does not take a genius nor is it ingenious to coat or spray the cameras with black paint and if the cameras are carefully overlapping in coverage, the spraying would have been recorded.
If it is not an act of ingenuity then you are speaking carelessly or wrong to call it so and it may encourage potential thieves to emulate and be classified as geniuses.
Genius is usually reserved for acts that are praiseworthy and so to call a dastardly act ingenious is asking for judgment.
ATMs cleaned out:
It is strong language that is false designed to stir readers’ emotions to ‘wow’ by saying thieves cleaned out the ATMs.
Emptied may be more appropriate and if there is something left behind then it is false to say ‘clean out’ without seeing or knowing it is so.
The use of strong language does not issue from true reason but it is driven by force or urge or desire to use strong language to stir up others and it is conditioning that will end in insanity and hell.
Unless you have seen the ATM was emptied you should not say it was emptied, just that it was robbed.
Hitting below the belt:
Datuk Seri Najib Razak dismissed Raja Petra Kamarudin’s statutory declaration linking his wife and two others to the murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaaribuu as “total lies, fabrication and total garbage.”
The Deputy Prime Minister said the allegations in the statutory declaration were a “desperate and pathetic attempt to discredit and taint my political image.”
Raja Petra’s allegation merely stated Rosmah was present at the scene, he did not say it was anything else.
Thus Najib’s description of the declaration as pathetic is scurrilous, hitting below the belt or mudslinging that is not the appropriate reply to the question.
There is nothing pathetic about the declaration, it is either true or false and if you perceive it is pathetic you are courting future mad perception. When you become intensely paranoid, all your food is poisoned then that is mad perception.
There will be painful karma:
Whoever you are, if you labelled as Najib did that Raja Petra’s declaration is pathetic, there will be karma for you even if it turned out that the allegation is false in which case Raja Petra will have karma for making a false allegation.
THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO CALL ANOTHER’S ALLEGATION PATHETIC, IT IS ATTACKING ANOTHER WITH WORDS AND IT INCURS KARMA WHETHER THE DECLARATION IS TRUE OR NOT.
He is angry and upset:
He is angry (a form of dislike) and probably upset (hurt) and no matter how you might justify it, it is applying force on your mind that is painful and conditions it so that it becomes increasingly easy to get angry and upset that will end in madness.
His anger also harms others and there is karma.
Further he is also prolonging, using force to prolong his mental and bodily state longer than necessary and that is the route to sadness.
The Buddha said you must be skilful because life is like a minefield full of potential karma that you must avoid. Thus to call another’s allegation pathetic is unskilful and incurs karma that cumulatively is like an ocean and lasts an eternity.
