dawsheng and DarkHorse, thank you for your replies.

I am impressed with DarkHorse’s meticulous write-up on the Cambridge brat and Jeffrey. Kudos to a dark horse which could win races unexpectedly.

For all his faults, Limkamput nevertheless has fighting spirits. Imagine, he could cause a Cambridge graduate to leave the scene. Mind boggling. Is he from Oxford or Harvard?

limkamput/Godamn Singh,

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.

DarkHorse,

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

Dear Jeffrey,

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.

Dear Jeffrey,

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.