Cynical Investor is Cynical Rat

I refer to the 30 Apr 2015 article “Bukit Batok, PAP or TRE rats in space?” by Cynical Investor.

Cynical Investor wrote:

The team hoping to send a Singaporean to space has completed a groundbreaking experiment – after three rats sent to space returned to Earth alive.

The experiment, conducted in Hyderabad, India, saw the rats contained in a prototype capsule designed to reach an altitude of 32km. Pressure was kept constant, and the temperature was a comfortable 28 degrees Celsius. The rats returned to land in “very good condition” (CNA a few months back)

Hmm wonder if Ng Kok Lim was one of these rats?

CI is good for nothing except making cheap pot shots without substantiation, without substance.

Cynical Investor wrote:

For those who don’t yet know, Ng Kok Lim cannot help but misrepresent me.

No one misrepresented CI. Ng Kok Lim’s representation of CI was truthful. It is CI who has shamelessly denied what he wrote.

Cynical Investor wrote:

In his second latest BS on TRE he claimed I sympathised with Amos Yee, quoting me out of context, and saying I too didn’t help Amos. He conveniently left out the link I put in the article he selective choses quotes from: that he should be caned. Err that sympathy? But then that point disturbs the narrative of the misrepresentation,

The BS is CI’s. Ng Kok Lim did not quote CI out of context but exactly within context. Ng Kok Lim had no need to conveniently leave out CI’s link because CI’s link did not contradict the fact that CI had indeed expressed sympathy for Amos. CI cannot adopt the twisted logic that as long as he had expressed some disapproval for Amos, he can then sprinkle in some good words or words of sympathy for Amos without being considered to have expressed good words or words of sympathy for Amos. He cannot have the twisted logic that negative comments combined with positive ones means the positive comments aren’t positive. He cannot shamelessly condemn others for speaking up but not taking action when he himself was guilty of the same thing.

Cynical Investor wrote:

In his latest piece, he shows that he read a lot of my pieces, yet quotes and misrepresents me, Chin Peng and the Plen extensively. (He makes Roy look like a paragon of truth on CPF when it’s a fact that Roy admitted that he lied about PM stealing our CPF*. M Ravi had a problem explaining to the court hearing the case why this admission shouldn’t be taken into account by the judge.)

CI could only claim but cannot prove that Ng Kok Lim had misrepresented him, Chin Peng or the Plen and shamelessly deny what he wrote in his own blog. If his own words from his blog don’t count, then what credibility does his blog have?

Ng Kok Lim quoted exact phrases of Chin Peng’s and the Plen’s respective denial of Leftist relation with the CPM and relation between the struggle in Singapore and the insurgency in Malaya. CI had chosen the biographies of these two gentlemen to base his arguments yet could not provide any similar phrase by them saying the opposite. Where does CI find the cheek to accuse Ng Kok Lim of misrepresenting Chin Peng or the Plen when he himself could draw no bullets from either gentleman?

CI should look himself in the mirror before making cheap potshots at others. Nobody can beat him in shamelessness.

Cynical Investor wrote:

Yet Ng cannot point to anything I wrote over the years that called certain leftists “communists” as he alleged when he screamed: CI is making the same unqualified smearing of the Lefitsts by the PAP by labeling them as communists like those in Cuba and so on. Where is CI’s proof that the leftists were actually communists?

But Ng Kok Lim has already returned the ball back to CI’s court by pointing to CI’s referral to the Leftists as those in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Red China who would imprison, exile or kill opponents and intellectuals to only mean the communists and nobody else. If CI has no answer to that, it means Ng Kok Lim was right and CI had indeed referred to the Leftists as communists.

Cynical Investor wrote:

I ask him again: Where did I ever call the Coldstore detainees “communists”?
Ng may have wished I called some leftists “communists”, but where’s the proof?

Ng Kok Lim answers one more time: CI did indeed call the Coldstore detainees communists when he referred to them as those in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Red China who would imprison, exile or kill opponents and intellectuals.

Ng Kok Lim has no need to wish that CI had called the leftists communists. The proof that CI indeed called the leftists communist can be found in CI’s referral to them as those in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Red China who would imprison, exile or kill opponents and intellectuals.

Time and again, CI’s defense never included any explanation about who those in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Red China who would imprison, exile or kill opponents and intellectuals were.

His silence despite being asked point blank who those in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Red China who would imprison, exile or kill opponents and intellectuals were tells us that he has no answer other than the one that would give his game away.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: