It is okay, Jeffrey. You are an epitome of civility. I sincerely mean it.

It is perfectly legitimate to hit back in self-defence when attacked. I can support you for even saying “God damn it, — Godamn Singh, don’t mind I borrow your handle a while — Lyunkam put, Mind your &*~#$*%ly low level of civility in discourse’ . limkamput, please take it good-humoredly. No offence intended.

In fact your right to a strong reply when attacked is protected by law. I reproduce below a relevant caselaw:

START:

Gatley at para. 14.49, 14.55 and 14.63 quoted in Wan Chiu Ying v. Tam Wai Chu [2005] MLB(HK) 1294 succinctly set out the relevant law thus:

Reply to attack.
Similar to the principle in the last paragraph is one whereby a person whose character or conduct has been attacked is entitled to answer such attack, and any defamatory statements he may make about the person who attacked him will be privileged, provided they are published bona fide and are fairly relevant to the accusations made. The law justifies a man in repelling a libelous charge by a denial or an explanation. He has a qualified privilege to answer the charge; and if he does so in good faith, and what he publishes is fairly an answer, and is published for the purpose of repelling the charge, and not with malice, it is privileged, though it be false. Mere retaliation, which cannot be described as an answer or explanation, is not protected, but the defendant is not required to be diffident in protecting himself and is allowed a considerable degree of latitude in this respect and the law does not concern itself with niceties in such matters. The central difficulty is to distinguish between mere retaliation and attacking the credibility of your opponent in legitimate self-defence.

END:

limkamput, hopefully you come back with a higher level of civility in discourse, by first withdrawing your disparaging statements against very many messengers you offended here. Doing so will prove your courage, not your defeat.

‘…to engage quid pro quo at your level of discourse..’ must be viewed in context of what transpired earlier.

Earlier we were engaging in discourse of civil nature ie people may disagree on opinions and even attack the message but not the messenger.

Then Limkamput came around (drew first blood) and started attacking messenger by calling me names ie stupid or cock talking instead of attacking merits or demerits of the message.

The message then flies out of the window and further arguments whether from me or him will be at the level of trading insults at messenger, to and fro, which I don’t think it is proper to engage in – within the space of this blog.

When I said, “I would not engage to engage quid pro quo at your level of discourse”, it would be obvious I refer to ‘his level of discourse’ of hurling personal insults at messenger than the message, which he started.

That “lower than your level” should be interpreted by limkamput as meaning something else than what I explained is not something that I can influence or have control. Nor is it necessary for me to further engage in rebuttal of something I thought, and still think is reasonably clear with someone whom in my assessment is inclined to make attacks on personalities than the merits or demerits of what was said.

Not rebutting or engaging is my privilege: it does not imply agreement or consent to what the other interprets.

On what you said, “Would you like to withdraw what you said to him to make amends? Obviously you were provoked and piqued by his brutally frank style of speaking his mind which had also offended at least 7 others” I would say:

1. I would certainly not withdraw;

2. Yes I was then “provoked and piqued” by his brutally frank style of speaking his mind – I agree with the words “provoked and piqued”
as applied to the circumstances then but I think “brutally frank” is a euphemism for brutally insulting not just to me but other posters;

3. I don’t expect any withdrawal or apology from him as he shouldn’t from me;

4. Having said that I bear no grudges with regards to anyone or Limkamput – it is really too petty to do so here in this medium – and apart from the above cited exchange, which you don’t seem to agree with the context I have made the statement – I don’t recall having made any personal attacks on Limkamput as a person as distinct from the contents of what he posts, if any. :)

Like I said earlier, “Even a dog knows when to put that tail between its legs – and run!”

My comment was based on your exchange with limkamput as reproduce below:

# limkamput Says:
November 11th, 2007 at 02: 05.37

START:

…..to engage quid pro quo at your level of discourse. Jeffrey

Why, my level too low for you? Surely you are a very humble
person.

One more thing, please don’t forget that tolerance includes not
just freedom of others to express their views but also the ability
to accept criticism of your postings. I think you have held sway
with your half baked ideas for too long. You will be hearing from
me more often from now on, whether you like it or not.

END:

You expression “at your level of discourse” was interpreted by limkamput as “lower than your level”. It might appear to be so to a reasonable person on the street. Furthermore, you did not rebut him.

Would you like to withdraw what you said to him to make amends? Obviously you were provoked and piqued by his brutally frank style of speaking his mind which had also offended at least 7 others.

You see, I like people who are courageous and brutally frank with me. I will not be offended or provoked to demean them. I may even thank them, if I believe I may improve that way.

Your exchanges with limkamput reminded me of an exchange between a Caucasian man and a local Professor, which took place during an international scientific conference very many years ago. The Professor was presenting a research paper on his innovative ideas which did not make sense at all, in fact preposterous to me, and I believe to many others in the audience as well. But, we just listened quietly somewhat amused. But the Caucasian man could not stand him, and despite his friends trying to stop him, he stood up and said “You are talking rubbish!” Imagine, he said this directly to the Professor in the presence of thousands of other scientists. I admired his courage and outspokenness. Nevertheless, later he did openly apologize to the Professor for offending him.

Don’t get me wrong, there is no innuendo here. Most of the bloggers here admire you for your input, and in fact some had expressed their great annoyance against limkamput for disparaging you.

On second thought, you could be right. School with attap roof within living memory? limkamput?

How do you know?? Because he says so? It is like reading my handle and say that I am a horse!

Aiyaaaah! Mr. Earnest, the Colonel did not say that lar! Please read more carefully. What he said is the opposite!

The list opposed to limkmaput gets longer, 8 and counting….

Godamn Singh, DarkHorse, Undergrad2, dawsheng, Jeffrey, Cambridge Lee, Colonel, ALtPJK.

I can accept Colonel’s disparagement without feeling offended. Opinions are protected by law because they are not falsifiable. It may take years to prove that I am not stupid in holding the above opinion about Section 27 of the Police Act pertaining to power to regulate assemblies, meetings and processions. Even then, I would not say that Colonel is more stupid, but I may be able to say that his disparagement is *&^%$#&~ unwarranted and unjustified.

If your constitutional right can be compromised by Section 27 of the Police Act, whereby the granting of police permit is up to the police, then your constitutional right can be granted or denied by them. In my humble opinion, holding a peaceful gathering without arms and a police permit is NOT illegal, else Article 10 of the Federal Constitution might as well be scrapped.

Having said that, don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that we should defy the need for a Police Permit before holding a rally. First, we must acknowledge that there is a problem with the objective of issuance of Police Permit — with permit, rally is legal; no permit, rally is illegal, despite constitutional guarantee. And also why KJ can, why Bersih and Hindraf can’t get it when KJ apparently had no locus standi, and they have real and serious grievances.

Perhaps YB Lim can make some changes to the rationale behind the Police Permit in Parliament, like changing it to “Police Protection Permit”. The objective of the permit should be not to subject our constitutional right to be allowed or denied by the police, but to inform the police that there is going to be an exercise of this right, a peaceful rally without arms, time, date, place and estimated number of demonstrators and that the demonstrators need police to control the traffic and police protection to ensure that there will be no disturbance from anti-demonstrators. If anti riot police do not provoke them, how could they start a fight, being unarmed?

However, I agree that disparaging invective and derogatory name calling should be discouraged because it spoils the atmosphere, and I would like to appeal to limkamput to refrain from doing so in future. Okay, limkamput? The list of bloggers opposed to you is growing. Something must be wrong. I do not believe that he is a mole, especially from the ruling party. He is a rebel. He speaks his mind without any pretensions, unfortunately sometimes without considering that someone could be piqued by his choice of words. But, you all must also be fair to him. Jeff had insulted him, insinuating that he was of a “lower level”, and Cambridge Lee had insinuated that she was of a higher level than him, like failing him for his manner of reasoning. He was provoked, and he defended himself using some disparaging words. You must understand that he was Chinese educated and from an attap kampong school, and is upfront and outspoken. With his background, I think his argumentative and writing ability is commendable minus the disparaging part. He can also write good Bahasa, and I believe good Chinese too, perhaps other languages as well.

BTW, feel free to criticize constructively whatever I write. Perhaps I can learn something from some of you even though I am much older in age. Disparaging words if justified are okay for me. I will not be offended.

He just has no reply to offer for his bad behaviour. What’s more I think the man is trying to change. So I think we should leave him alone. Next time he returns to his haughty self, we’ll hammer him again!

If that doesn’t work then I’ll have to call for a straight jacket and a stretcher.

“So we must not squander what we have and not let this forum degenerate into a mud slinging match nor let it be hijacked for egoistic pursuits. ”

We have been around this blog since Kit started it in this format a few years ago. We’ve never seen such relentless bashing inflicted repeatedly on a fellow commentator or commentators merely for speaking out. Jeff is well known among commentators here. He never allowed himself to plunge into a tirade even when abused verbally by a vile commentator such as this ‘limkamput’.

There is no word to describe this person hiding behind the handle ‘limkamput’ other than “obnoxious”. If it were my blog I’d have banished him from the blog without batting an eye lid. The other commentators, feeling for Jeffrey, only retaliated to the name calling and the invective. They did not initiate it.

“”We must mindful too that minus our masquerades, there could be UMNO/MCA/MIC moles mingling around and hell-bent into making this forum a farce.”

Yes, we can expect BN moles especially UMNO moles including those who do not meet the traditional definition of a ‘mole’ and who is here because he is frustrated and feels the need to nurse back his damaged ego. I can sense a few from time to time but usually they do not linger around too long especially when they are ignored by the pack.

We are afforded the luxury of equal and liberal use of airtime. Contrast this to the opprtunities or the lack of them that YB Lim KS has to contend with throughout his life as our representative. In Parliament, he and his fellow MPs are often shouted down by YBs of the BN type. In the media, YB Lim does not get an iota of a chance to have his piece mentioned. This is an avenue where he gets to say his piece and we can join in.

So we must not squander what we have and not let this forum degenerate into a mud slinging match nor let it be hijacked for egoistic pursuits. We say our piece and present our views but we must remain civil in our exchanges. Only then we can attract civil-minded and astute commentators to contribute their considered
views and constructive ideas.

We must mindful too that minus our masquerades, there could be UMNO/MCA/MIC moles mingling around and hell-bent into making this forum a farce.

Can I call you stupid for saying here that Section 27 of the Police Act is rendered null and void because it contravenes Article 10 of the Constitution? Can I call you a moron? Being right about an issue does not give me the right to call you stupid or a moron.

Goodness gracious!! The great debate of November 11, 2007!!

Very impressive intellectual discourse. Lee, the Cambridge brat reasoned and wrote beautifully. She would say that I am illogical if I conclude that as a result she must be beautiful. Just gut feelings. Like limkamput, who relied on gut feelings, I could probably be right. I am inclined to think that he was right about the gathering being NOT illegal, even though basing on Cambridge Lee’s very convincing philosophical reasonings prowess, she could have won the debate. But, unfortunately she was not trained in law. This was her setback. Wrong premises were assumed leading to flawed philosophical reasonings and conclusions.

The BERSIH and HINDRAF gatherings were NOT illegal because Article 10 of the supreme law of the land, the Federal Constitution guarantees us our inalienable rights to peaceful gathering without arms. Their rights to peaceful gatherings are also guaranteed the world over by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. As a result, since Police Act Section 27 regarding the police permit contravenes the supreme law, it is thereby automatically null and void. Otherwise, why are the 3 leaders of Hindraf not charged in Klang Court for defying even restraining court orders against the Hindraf demonstration they led, which was declared “illegal” because there was no police permit. You may wait for a court to repeal the Act to render it ineffective, and suffer in silence despite the violation of your rights. But, you do not need to wait for a court decision to convince you that Black is Black, when an Act and the police state that Black is White.

limkamput is a highly intelligent person. Even Cambridge Lee conceded that he should be a Harvard Professor. I too thought he could be from Oxford or Harvard, before I read about the great debate. Do not underestimate limkamput. I think he is a pragmatic genius.

Let me tell you my personal experience. My former boss was a highly intelligent and dashing British Oxford PhD graduate (who was as charismatic as Robert Redford) who had established a formidable international reputation because of his prolific and highly regarded research papers he presented in very many international conferences. But he shocked me for saying that a plant would not die of too much watering. He could not believe me that the over-watered plant would rot and die. This was because he was a strictly a scientific theory man, dealing mainly with biotech plants kept in sterile solution in test-tubes. But he was not aware that outside the lab, when planted on soil, there were bacteria and fungi which could cause rotting, which an uneducated farmer would have known by gut feelings, even though the farmer knew nothing about bacteria and fungi.

Godamn Singh, DarkHorse, Undergrad2, dawsheng, Jeffrey and Cambridge Lee all do not agree with limkamput. Some disparaged him rather unfairly. We are like one family. I treat all of you fairly like my own children. However, I can not help agreeing with most of his points of view. His unpopularity is due to his choice of words against his brothers and sisters. But, his input should not be sidelined. He is like in the position of Copernicus or Galileo. A lot of their contemporaries disagreed with them. But, they were proven right eventually.

Godamn Singh, don’t you agree with me. I can be your Grandpa, y’know.

Shall we tell him what the difference is?? Naaah…let him find out for himself. We’ll know when he stops using the word ‘egoism’.

I agree. Limkamput should stop his tirade against other commentators just because they have different view points.

You don’t really know what you’re talking about do you, limkampuiiieeet? This is best applied to yourself and not to Jeffrey or this Lee fella from University of Cambridge. You applied the term to about everybody who disagrees with you. How convenient! When you have no answer to give to counter the truth of the allegations made against you, you hope your use of expressions like “an epitome of egoism’ would impress readers and hope they forget the real issue.

The thread this limkampuiiieeet is referring to and about which he now pleads ignorance so you will not be able to find, is:

“Bersih Gathering/Petition to Agong – PM should show the world that Malaysia is a democratic country”

Enjoy!