Since the Malayan Federation gained independence from British Empire in1957, August 31st has become Malaysia’s National Day. It is the day where we can see many Malaysians fly the Malaysian Flag (Jalur Gemilang) almost everywhere, to show their patriotic spirit towards the country. Yes, today we call it patriotism, but this ‘patriotism’ is an evolved version of nationalism.
So what is this ‘nationalism? For me, it is some sort of a selfish and racist spirit to form a defended-localized and bordered territory. The question is, do such ’spirit’ necessary to fight for independence? Like what Malaysian forefathers did in the 40’s and 50’s? Nationalism may sounds good because it is believed to provide the nation with independence, but what’s the point if because of such thing, racial identity will be sacrificed?
Denying the racial identity for the sake of the so-called national unity is like defying the God’s will. God created human in various race and ethnicity because He wanted it to be that way. He wanted us to accept the fact that we are different in certain areas. Through the differences, He is testing us whether we can acknowledge each other or not.
Sunday, August 31
Friday, August 29
Sexual Attraction and Homosexuality
Sexually attractive does not always mean the temptation towards having sex. It may also means the attraction towards the person of opposite gender. Therefore, there is no sexual attraction in homosexuality. People become gay because of their own misguided will, and as usual, gays will use their misguided will to rationalize their immoral action (homosexuality). Most of the time, they will say "people should not judge each other", as if they are trying to say there should be no judgment between people. That sounds so unjust, isn't it?
People need judgment or there will be no justice. People need to be judged by others because not everybody can accept anybody, just like how the gays can't accept that homosexuality is morally wrong. Still can't properly think how on earth being gay can be wrong? I wish I could explain more here but maybe later in my next article. Even kids know homosexuality is a fruitless sexual relationship, so if kids with their purity and unbounded mind can think like that, don't we feel ashamed as an adult? What I can see is, gays can only rationalize homosexuality, but they are completely failed to explain that it is a right thing to do.
People need judgment or there will be no justice. People need to be judged by others because not everybody can accept anybody, just like how the gays can't accept that homosexuality is morally wrong. Still can't properly think how on earth being gay can be wrong? I wish I could explain more here but maybe later in my next article. Even kids know homosexuality is a fruitless sexual relationship, so if kids with their purity and unbounded mind can think like that, don't we feel ashamed as an adult? What I can see is, gays can only rationalize homosexuality, but they are completely failed to explain that it is a right thing to do.
Wednesday, August 27
Congratulations to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim!
Congratulations to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the advisor of PKR (People's Justice Party) for winning the parliamentary seat of Permatang Pauh, under the PKR label, with a very big majority. Hope he will be able to bring reformation (reformasi) and refreshment towards Malaysian politics and democratic practices. By the way, the government, which is under the reign of BN (National Frontiers) keep telling the people not to use religion for political purpose. Does that mean do not use politic for religious purpose? lol! I know they are referring to PAS (Malaysia Islamic Party) whom the government have always accused them as "using Islam for their own political ambition". What the...? The religion itself (Islam) is already a form of politic so it is wrong to say that religion and politic can never get along. Why did I say so? Because both are about spreading words and influence, as well as gathering followers. The only difference is, religious followers are called believers while political followers are usually called supporters.
Thursday, August 21
Blogger posts successfully exported!
This is may or may not my last post here. Thank goodness my posts here has been successfully exported to yougotta yesterday. Now, my only concern is to place the Google Ads on that site. I hope it will generate more income there, but I am not going to entirely abandon this site in favor of yougotta. right-o-matic will always remain there, and may or may not be continuously updated, depending on current situation/affairs.
Friday, August 15
2 Months As GForum Moderator
Finally, my final week as a moderator of GForum has come. I am expecting a demotion by today but so far, it seems like nobody realize about it or they might have forgotten about it. I think I'm going to submit my resign request soon.
I'm also not going to set up a poll in the micronation thread since most people who have replied there are only over reacting towards it, or should I say getting mad on something they shouldn't have to. Yes, why must we get angry on something that cause no harm on us? Hmm. Unless more people are able to think about it, I might change my mind.
A great disaster happened to my forum after the upgrading process completed yesterday. The backup file does not work as it should. For some unknown reason, it has corrupted beyond repair. I have no choice but to restore the backup data of a few months ago, which means any registrants who registered after the date of backup data have to re-register again. This also means the bugsters in the previous data is now appeared again, and i have to work on this matter as well. *sigh*
I'm also not going to set up a poll in the micronation thread since most people who have replied there are only over reacting towards it, or should I say getting mad on something they shouldn't have to. Yes, why must we get angry on something that cause no harm on us? Hmm. Unless more people are able to think about it, I might change my mind.
A great disaster happened to my forum after the upgrading process completed yesterday. The backup file does not work as it should. For some unknown reason, it has corrupted beyond repair. I have no choice but to restore the backup data of a few months ago, which means any registrants who registered after the date of backup data have to re-register again. This also means the bugsters in the previous data is now appeared again, and i have to work on this matter as well. *sigh*
Wednesday, August 13
Islam (2nd Edition)
Observing the current international affair these days, I have to say more and more non-Muslims are misinformed about Islam every single day. Not to really blame them though since most them still think vice-versa that Islam is Muslim and Muslim is Islam. They are not only misinformed, they are also misunderstood of it, especially when they see more Muslim terrorist on media, although those Muslim terrorist are just a very small portion of all terrorist around the world. Some might ask, why we see more Muslim terrorist then, compared to 'non-Muslim terrorist'? I must say it is the fault of the mass media. We have seen much fraud from mass media so why must we have to entirely trust it, right?
To my non-Muslim friends out there, here is my explanation of Islam. Islam is not a religion of mere ritual and spiritual only, but it is a complete civilization. Since Islam is, unlike any other religion, it is the most complete way of life to any Muslim, any attempt to change the way of life of a Muslim is actually considered as an attempt to interfere with their religious issue, or in other words, an attempt to alter their religion, which is a taboo in Islam itself. Therefore, non-Muslim should never question Muslim's religious way of life.
Islam is not just about the Koran and hadith only. It is a system that includes the whole way of life. Not even a single element of life is not covered by a true Islamic system. It covers everything from the moment we wake up until the next time we awake. This makes Islam different from the rest of other existing religion, not even the other Abrahamic religions like Judaism and Christianity.
I remember some time ago when some artists caused a stir in the Muslim world by drawing images to have said depicting Prophet Muhammad. For me, this is a really bad move, even if it is for historical purposes. The problem is, do the world need the image of him, when the Muslim themselves never bother to draw it? That is why the action is considered as an insult and disrespectful. Of course, Islam forbids its believer to draw the picture of Prophet Muhammad so we can say this restriction is valid to Muslims only. True, but only to certain extent. Say Islam forbids Muslims from stepping on the Koran, so does that means non Muslims can step on the Koran? This is not about the so-called restrictions, this is about respect. It does not matter whether you are believer or not, do not ever show disrespectful towards any religions or beliefs. Even if you are non believer or non-Muslim, what would you feel if somebody openly depicts atheism or any other religion as something that may annoy or disturb you? If you'd feel offended, congratulations because then you knew how the Muslims feel when people do such thing to them. If you feel nothing, I must say you are admitting that you don't believe in restrictions and you are thinking that this 'respect' thingy is a crap. And why must the non Muslims bother to draw the image of Prophet Muhammad in the first place, even for Christ's sake? The Muslims don't even bother to draw Jesus's image when learning history because we know it is pretty unnecessary. It's not that we are going to meet him (Prophet Muhammad) anywhere in the near future (at least in this life) so it is clearly pointless to have his graphical depictions openly displayed, even in the internet.
"I thought you're a Christian, aren't you?" you asked me? No, I am a born Muslim, always have, always will, and always be. Some of you may have thought that I am a Christian because of my 'seemingly religious' statements about Christianity all this time. Well, you may keep thinking like that if you want, but please think of me as a Christian who believe the prophethood of Christ, a Christian who believe that Christ was not crucified, a Christian who believe that Christ was ascended by God to heaven alive, a Christian who believe that Christ acknowledged the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad, a Christian who believe Christ taught the Bible directly to his people, a Christian who believe that Christ is not the son of God. And that makes me a Muslim.
p/s: pardon me if you found any of my words are harsh or sounds insulting to you. I really have no intention to offend anybody.
To my non-Muslim friends out there, here is my explanation of Islam. Islam is not a religion of mere ritual and spiritual only, but it is a complete civilization. Since Islam is, unlike any other religion, it is the most complete way of life to any Muslim, any attempt to change the way of life of a Muslim is actually considered as an attempt to interfere with their religious issue, or in other words, an attempt to alter their religion, which is a taboo in Islam itself. Therefore, non-Muslim should never question Muslim's religious way of life.
Islam is not just about the Koran and hadith only. It is a system that includes the whole way of life. Not even a single element of life is not covered by a true Islamic system. It covers everything from the moment we wake up until the next time we awake. This makes Islam different from the rest of other existing religion, not even the other Abrahamic religions like Judaism and Christianity.
I remember some time ago when some artists caused a stir in the Muslim world by drawing images to have said depicting Prophet Muhammad. For me, this is a really bad move, even if it is for historical purposes. The problem is, do the world need the image of him, when the Muslim themselves never bother to draw it? That is why the action is considered as an insult and disrespectful. Of course, Islam forbids its believer to draw the picture of Prophet Muhammad so we can say this restriction is valid to Muslims only. True, but only to certain extent. Say Islam forbids Muslims from stepping on the Koran, so does that means non Muslims can step on the Koran? This is not about the so-called restrictions, this is about respect. It does not matter whether you are believer or not, do not ever show disrespectful towards any religions or beliefs. Even if you are non believer or non-Muslim, what would you feel if somebody openly depicts atheism or any other religion as something that may annoy or disturb you? If you'd feel offended, congratulations because then you knew how the Muslims feel when people do such thing to them. If you feel nothing, I must say you are admitting that you don't believe in restrictions and you are thinking that this 'respect' thingy is a crap. And why must the non Muslims bother to draw the image of Prophet Muhammad in the first place, even for Christ's sake? The Muslims don't even bother to draw Jesus's image when learning history because we know it is pretty unnecessary. It's not that we are going to meet him (Prophet Muhammad) anywhere in the near future (at least in this life) so it is clearly pointless to have his graphical depictions openly displayed, even in the internet.
"I thought you're a Christian, aren't you?" you asked me? No, I am a born Muslim, always have, always will, and always be. Some of you may have thought that I am a Christian because of my 'seemingly religious' statements about Christianity all this time. Well, you may keep thinking like that if you want, but please think of me as a Christian who believe the prophethood of Christ, a Christian who believe that Christ was not crucified, a Christian who believe that Christ was ascended by God to heaven alive, a Christian who believe that Christ acknowledged the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad, a Christian who believe Christ taught the Bible directly to his people, a Christian who believe that Christ is not the son of God. And that makes me a Muslim.
p/s: pardon me if you found any of my words are harsh or sounds insulting to you. I really have no intention to offend anybody.
Monday, August 11
The Will To Perfection (2nd Edition)
Why there are good, ignorant, and bad people? Why must they exist at the same time? These are unanswered questions that have been in my mind since long time ago. Yes, for me it is possible to have only good people in the world that we may call utopia but too bad, in this real world, the rooms are also available for ignorant and bad people as well.
Before we judge "this people good, that people bad", first, we must determine what is good, what is bad. In any available human language, the structure and mechanism are always about "something come out from something". For example, the good come from the bad, the truth come from the false, the rich come from the poor. In other words, everything seems to have its own origin, and the origin seems likely always come from the opposite nature of the outcome, of which, in this case, we may can't determine the 'good' without the 'bad' as our benchmark.
Good and bad are some of the available moral value. Moral value and social value won't mix because morality is about being right or wrong, while social is about acceptance by a community or a society, which means even if some immoral acts are acceptable to a certain community or society, it does not mean they are right. However, these days, the right (good) and wrong (bad) are always determined socially, not morally.
Since the beginning of humanity, or should I say the so-called morality, which, in many known civilizations and cultures, well or not well defined in 'Moral Codes', human has always rely on the cause-consequence pairing mechanism to perform moral valuation. However, this method always involving observation of hunter-prey relationship, where always, if not every time, the victimized are innocent. In other words, it requires sacrifice. This may also apply on single individual, where in this case, he might have sacrificed himself deliberately or accidentally, which the later is the most common. If he survived the former and learn something, he will regret or else, with enough will, try a different, more effective method, while if he survive the later, he will, also learn something, and willing to use a safer alternative method, of course to prevent accident, though accident is not all about bad things since it is all about getting the unexpected or undesired results. Lets call the 'something learned' in this context as experience.
Experience does not teach us exactly the right thing, but rather teaching us to dodge all wrong things, in hope for the right and desired result. Therefore, it is safe to say that experience is all about accident and despair, directly or indirectly. Now, consider that sacrifice and accident, in both individual or collective community, are unnecessary of avoidable in order to give any value to morality, how are we going to value it, when sacrifice and accident has been our morality benchmarking mechanism all this time?
One way any philosopher may venture is, to create the value itself, from scratch. This may sound extremely easy, even without initial value, since any value to be created itself is to be considered initial, if the valuation is to be conducted randomly, without considering any other factors that may give visible or insignificant effect to the resulting value, if those factor were considered. However, as the valuation process expands, even at the slowest possible rate, things will surely become extremely complicated. At this stage, philosophers who try to do the valuation might act like law-giver, law-creator. Nothing wrong for acting like that, but that is the risky part of moral valuation, even at its very basic stage of assessment.
If, people can really determine what is good and what is bad, we can't sure either whether human will will always directed towards the good only. Human have 'almost' completely free will where they may or may not choose to be either good or bad, or according to the topic, to be ignorant. The problem is with the human will itself. Is there anything we can do on our part? Well, we can at least try to think, beyond the good and evil.
*credits to Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche's "Jenseits von Gut und Bose" (Beyond Good and Evil)
Before we judge "this people good, that people bad", first, we must determine what is good, what is bad. In any available human language, the structure and mechanism are always about "something come out from something". For example, the good come from the bad, the truth come from the false, the rich come from the poor. In other words, everything seems to have its own origin, and the origin seems likely always come from the opposite nature of the outcome, of which, in this case, we may can't determine the 'good' without the 'bad' as our benchmark.
Good and bad are some of the available moral value. Moral value and social value won't mix because morality is about being right or wrong, while social is about acceptance by a community or a society, which means even if some immoral acts are acceptable to a certain community or society, it does not mean they are right. However, these days, the right (good) and wrong (bad) are always determined socially, not morally.
Since the beginning of humanity, or should I say the so-called morality, which, in many known civilizations and cultures, well or not well defined in 'Moral Codes', human has always rely on the cause-consequence pairing mechanism to perform moral valuation. However, this method always involving observation of hunter-prey relationship, where always, if not every time, the victimized are innocent. In other words, it requires sacrifice. This may also apply on single individual, where in this case, he might have sacrificed himself deliberately or accidentally, which the later is the most common. If he survived the former and learn something, he will regret or else, with enough will, try a different, more effective method, while if he survive the later, he will, also learn something, and willing to use a safer alternative method, of course to prevent accident, though accident is not all about bad things since it is all about getting the unexpected or undesired results. Lets call the 'something learned' in this context as experience.
Experience does not teach us exactly the right thing, but rather teaching us to dodge all wrong things, in hope for the right and desired result. Therefore, it is safe to say that experience is all about accident and despair, directly or indirectly. Now, consider that sacrifice and accident, in both individual or collective community, are unnecessary of avoidable in order to give any value to morality, how are we going to value it, when sacrifice and accident has been our morality benchmarking mechanism all this time?
One way any philosopher may venture is, to create the value itself, from scratch. This may sound extremely easy, even without initial value, since any value to be created itself is to be considered initial, if the valuation is to be conducted randomly, without considering any other factors that may give visible or insignificant effect to the resulting value, if those factor were considered. However, as the valuation process expands, even at the slowest possible rate, things will surely become extremely complicated. At this stage, philosophers who try to do the valuation might act like law-giver, law-creator. Nothing wrong for acting like that, but that is the risky part of moral valuation, even at its very basic stage of assessment.
If, people can really determine what is good and what is bad, we can't sure either whether human will will always directed towards the good only. Human have 'almost' completely free will where they may or may not choose to be either good or bad, or according to the topic, to be ignorant. The problem is with the human will itself. Is there anything we can do on our part? Well, we can at least try to think, beyond the good and evil.
*credits to Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche's "Jenseits von Gut und Bose" (Beyond Good and Evil)
Friday, August 8
7th Week As GForum Moderator
GForum's current version of democracy: decide first, talk about it later.
Democracy should be "talk first, decide later"! After 7 weeks, what I get from GForum is, to (some of) the people in power, getting along means to obey only whatever the leaders said while suppressing your own will. It is a clear sign of despotism. They try to act like nature where only them can control people while people are not allowed to 'control' them back. They freely label those who disagree with their ways as rebels.
I am not going to offend anybody in specific, that's why I made this post as general as it could.
I don't have any other definitions for democracy except for the classic one, which the power and leadership are determined by the public, but it doesn't mean it is started by the majority. Everything big are came from one single idea from either a person or a small group of people. If you ask me, my preferred version of democracy is more of the republic type.
The real purpose of democracy is to please most people most people most of the time, not to please all people all the time, or some people some of the time. However, it does not mean the minority is to be ignored just because they are on the losing side. Both majority and minority must be treated according to their needs at the same time.
You may want to know what is the proper democracy I meant? Here is my simple answer. Whenever there are any decisions to be made of which such decision will affects the whole community, the people in power should openly discussed the matter with the public. At this stage, anybody who are brave enough to voice out their opinion should be allowed to do so. However, debates alone can't solve things because not everybody have the guts to do it, so let those who silent to cast their vote. Since those 'silent' people only dare to vote, their votes must be guaranteed private and confidential. This way, we can ensure nobody is left behind, and if there are, it is not because the failure of the system, but their own failure to get involved in politics.
Democracy should be "talk first, decide later"! After 7 weeks, what I get from GForum is, to (some of) the people in power, getting along means to obey only whatever the leaders said while suppressing your own will. It is a clear sign of despotism. They try to act like nature where only them can control people while people are not allowed to 'control' them back. They freely label those who disagree with their ways as rebels.
I am not going to offend anybody in specific, that's why I made this post as general as it could.
I don't have any other definitions for democracy except for the classic one, which the power and leadership are determined by the public, but it doesn't mean it is started by the majority. Everything big are came from one single idea from either a person or a small group of people. If you ask me, my preferred version of democracy is more of the republic type.
The real purpose of democracy is to please most people most people most of the time, not to please all people all the time, or some people some of the time. However, it does not mean the minority is to be ignored just because they are on the losing side. Both majority and minority must be treated according to their needs at the same time.
You may want to know what is the proper democracy I meant? Here is my simple answer. Whenever there are any decisions to be made of which such decision will affects the whole community, the people in power should openly discussed the matter with the public. At this stage, anybody who are brave enough to voice out their opinion should be allowed to do so. However, debates alone can't solve things because not everybody have the guts to do it, so let those who silent to cast their vote. Since those 'silent' people only dare to vote, their votes must be guaranteed private and confidential. This way, we can ensure nobody is left behind, and if there are, it is not because the failure of the system, but their own failure to get involved in politics.
Olympic comes to China: Why do we need democracy?
Why we need democracy? My simplest answer would be because we are more than two people. A more 'advanced' answer would be because it is less time consuming to make decisions in a democratic way than resorting to debate only. Democracy is the best way to determine superiority by considering all possible candidates and let the public vote. Do we need to feel threatened just because somebody want a democratic system? My answer is no. Well, if you think you are really good as a leader, let your people decide that. Unless you are afraid of losing your power and your control over your people, you should not feel threatened by it. In other words, if you think you are suitable enough to fit in the leadership position, then there is no reason to be afraid. Just let the community decide who should hold the power, and how long the leader should hold the leadership. It is more transparent to choose the leader that way.
Thursday, August 7
The Art of Explanation
Individual style of explanation, a form of communication, for me, is one of the linguistic arts like poems and lyrics. I think everyone must have different style of explanation and different accent to keep one's existence acknowledged or else, s/he may end up imitating someone else, losing oneself (identity). By having unique and distinctive style of explanation, one is actually giving him/herself an opportunity to explore possibilities. For example, when people asking you "Why do you using mobile phone?". Thinking of it and different people may come up with different answers such as:
1. "Dude! I'm just using it for SMS." - Avid SMS-er.
2. "Man, its just for call." - Normal phone user.
3. "I'm using it for listening to music." - Mobile audiophile.
4. "There is no use for me of this thing but I'm having it for fashion." - style fag.
5. "Buddy, I'm using it to be in contact with my parents and my friends round the clock." - contact freak.
See? Now the same facilities used by every person but the point is just to make understand the style of explanation, so the thing is style of explanation matters a lot in the practical.
1. "Dude! I'm just using it for SMS." - Avid SMS-er.
2. "Man, its just for call." - Normal phone user.
3. "I'm using it for listening to music." - Mobile audiophile.
4. "There is no use for me of this thing but I'm having it for fashion." - style fag.
5. "Buddy, I'm using it to be in contact with my parents and my friends round the clock." - contact freak.
See? Now the same facilities used by every person but the point is just to make understand the style of explanation, so the thing is style of explanation matters a lot in the practical.
Wednesday, August 6
Islam (Part II)
Since Islam is, unlike any other religion, it is the most complete way of life to any Muslim, any attempt to change the way of life of a Muslim is actually considered as an attempt to interfere with their religious issue, or in other words, an attempt to alter their religion, which is a taboo in Islam itself. Therefore, non-Muslim should never question Muslim's religious way of life.
Tuesday, August 5
What's Great About Roman Historical Record
Ancient Roman are indeed very honest people in terms of recording historical events, perhaps because they are very careful when it comes to dealing with the calendar. Even the first day of Roman calendar as well as the day of the foundation of Rome was properly recorded. They know things like Jesus resurrect the dead, cure the blind and give life to clay bird. However, they did not mix history with superstitious/supernatural stuff. That is why the Roman historical records remain as one of the most accurate, accountable and reliable in the world today. Thinking of that, I am quite ashamed with my ancestors. Why? If any of you ever read "Sejarah Melayu" (History of The Malay) written/compiled by Tun Sri Lanang, you'll find many true historical events inside are mixed with legends and myths, rendering it become almost completely pointless or useless to be referred as historical source. Not to mention "Hikayat Hang Tuah" (The Tales of Hang Tuah) that is also 'contaminated' with those folklore stuff. Both are bad. Perhaps the ancient Malay kings that ordered their writers to do so. Who knows?
Monday, August 4
The Lost Legacies
Why do some of our ancestor's legacies and records lost in history? Because some generations between them and us just don't give a damn to their forefather's history. See how bad the impact if people lost interest in history? Just take a look at the Egyptian Empire. If people were care about history and properly passes their knowledge to the newer generations, we might still be able to build another Great Pyramid today. That's how important it is to learn history. History is not only about learning and knowing the truth of past events, it is also about passing forward everything we know today to the next generations.
Saturday, August 2
The Melancholy of Modern Visual Culture (Code: Anime)
Today's anime always failed to successfully impress me. Most of the time, I see them as mere entertainment with nothing much to say. I know I should not expect too much on them but for a few hundred bucks I paid, of course I am expecting more than just entertainment, perhaps something that have deep impact on me or the community.
Many today's animators resorting to fan service to attract viewers rather than using good plots, as if they are not confident with their own anime works. Serious anime should not rely on fan service to draw viewer's attention, or should not have fan service at all.
It's not that I am against all fan service, but at least look at where to use it. I am fine if it is for happy fun anime but for the serious one, where heavy theme is used, fan service is like a contamination. Some other animator even using gory scenes for the same purpose. Serious anime is supposed to display serious matters in entertainment form, where the target viewers are those who can think outside of the box unlike ordinary people. These people are not 'susceptible' to those 'seduction' so it is pointless to use fan service or gore in serious anime.
Many today's animators resorting to fan service to attract viewers rather than using good plots, as if they are not confident with their own anime works. Serious anime should not rely on fan service to draw viewer's attention, or should not have fan service at all.
It's not that I am against all fan service, but at least look at where to use it. I am fine if it is for happy fun anime but for the serious one, where heavy theme is used, fan service is like a contamination. Some other animator even using gory scenes for the same purpose. Serious anime is supposed to display serious matters in entertainment form, where the target viewers are those who can think outside of the box unlike ordinary people. These people are not 'susceptible' to those 'seduction' so it is pointless to use fan service or gore in serious anime.
Friday, August 1
6th Week as GForum Moderator
Now that I have taken my move to implement democracy, nothing much happened besides the other fellow moderators greatly opposed my idea. No, they does not oppose my idea, but they were actually doing personal attack against me.
Some people there keep bugging me "who do you mean by 'treating this forum as their own?" I won't answer that directly since I think any person who asked that is mature enough to judge the situation all this time, unless they are just pretending not understanding a thing for butt-kissing's sake. I am fighting for democracy right? So doesn't that mean my choice is private and confidential? What good can it be if I reveal any names then? I am trying my best to avoid personal attack, so that is why I use the phrase 'some people' to represent those culprits. Being general is not personal attack, thank you very much.
My oh my, those who oppose me are, some of them, very immature in dealing with the issue, treating me as their enemy as if what I'm going to do will destroy GForum.
Some people there keep bugging me "who do you mean by 'treating this forum as their own?" I won't answer that directly since I think any person who asked that is mature enough to judge the situation all this time, unless they are just pretending not understanding a thing for butt-kissing's sake. I am fighting for democracy right? So doesn't that mean my choice is private and confidential? What good can it be if I reveal any names then? I am trying my best to avoid personal attack, so that is why I use the phrase 'some people' to represent those culprits. Being general is not personal attack, thank you very much.
My oh my, those who oppose me are, some of them, very immature in dealing with the issue, treating me as their enemy as if what I'm going to do will destroy GForum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)