• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Chee, SDP and the letters!

yellowarse

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Thanks for the reading. Some points to note summarized from both Wades article and Chin Peng.

Again your deliberate tarring of all those arrested with the 'communist' brush and hence, by association, with the spectre of violence and dictatorship is absurd, if not blatantly mischievous and deceitful.

I repeat: none of the key detainees of the Cold Store ever confessed to being a 'communist'; that is why they were detained for so long. Even Lim Chin Siong denied the label; he was only exiled after renouncing politics.

It may be that communist nations tend to be dictatorial. So too are fascist nations. As well as dynastic states and authoritarian nations of whatever stripe. Well, Singapore is currently a quasi-fascist dictatorship, despite being nominally declared a Westminster parliamentary 'democracy'. Should LKY have been arrested too? Can you see where your spurious slippery slope arguments lead us?

Just so, the Scandinavian countries are probably the most socialist nations on earth. Are they dictatorships? Is government there predicated on violent repression?

Many of the detainees were solid socialists devoted to socialist causes and the parliamentary platform. Of course they were influenced to some degree by the socialist aspects of Marxism and state communism. But you don't arrest leftists based on the assumptions (1) they might be communists; (2) they are violent; and (3) the country may become a dictatorship.

We arrest people based on evidence of acts of violence or intended violence or any other unlawful activities. To this end, the declassified documents could not be any clearer where the Brits and ICS stood: violence wasn't a genuine factor in the arrests; it was just an excuse, a pretext, a political expedient.

And please, even if we're talking about commies, remember this is not a black-and-white world: Commies all bad, capitalists all good. A quick example: Cuba has a narrower income gap and lower infant mortality than the US, with universal education, literacy and healthcare coverage, despite the decades of economic crippling by the vindictive US embargo which is based on nothing more than ideological grounds. (I'm not even talking about the thousands of assassination attempts by the CIA on Castro... talk about violence!)

Is Cuba a 'bad', 'dangerous' nation — as you and Scroobal insinuate about communism — which deserves to be wiped off the face of this earth? And the US a godsend model of good governance, enlightened economics exemplary society that should be emulated by all other nations?
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
You may wish to read your own comments about the IRA again. Looks like you got yourself into a knot.

I detect a straw man here: twist my position slightly and attack it.

I didn't say that there was anything wrong with the IRA. I didn't say they did whatever they did for profit, or simply because they were thugs and opportunists. And I certainly didn't question their dedication. (These attributes might apply to old fart, but not to the IRA or even the CPM.)

But I made it clear that comparing Lim Hock Siew & Co to the IRA is dishonest and calculated to mislead. Because while the IRA is an armed militia group which had no compunction achieving independence through violence and terrorism, those arrested under Cold Store were intent on achieving power through peaceful constitutional means, of which the Brits well cognizant of. The question of violence being central to the discussion at hand: What was the basis for the Cold Store arrests, and were the arrests legitimate?

(Of course the use of violence by an oppressed group suffering from prior violence is a grey area: if the Jews had taken up arms against the Holocaust and the Third Reich, most would not have grudged them their choice to use violence to eradicate violence. Ghandi would disagree, though.)

The Dalai Lama is fighting determinedly for Tibetan autonomy; he's called himself a Marxist monk; but he has also denounced violence and is a fan of Ghandian ahimsa ('non-violence'). Do you compare the Dalai to the IRA?
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
In just one thread. The art of winning an argument - never address the issue. Just attack the person.

You see, your dishonest personality always manifest itself.

You are a truly a dishonest guy.

You are definitely a confidence trickster.

But you've disingenuously digressed

But I made it clear that comparing Lim Hock Siew & Co to the IRA is dishonest and calculated to mislead.
 

yellowarse

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
In just one thread. The art of winning an argument - never address the issue. Just attack the person.

Ah, now I see some English lessons are in order.

The first three examples are what we'd call ad hominem arguments: attack the person, and by corollary his arguments are then false.

The last two are not so:

"But you've disingenuously digressed"

= "The act of digression, not the person, is disingenuous."


"But I made it clear that comparing Lim Hock Siew & Co to the IRA is dishonest and calculated to mislead."

= "The act of comparing ____ to ____ is dishonest..." Again no mention is made of the person as dishonest.


It's one thing to judge an act, quite another to make a personal judgement against someone.

"It is heinous to kill someone" = judging the act

"The murderer is evil" = judging the person

Comprende?
 
Last edited:

yellowarse

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
You may wish to read your own comments about the IRA again. Looks like you got yourself into a knot.

Sorry to disappoint you, but no knots.

I stand by my assertion: to compare Lim Hock Siew & Co to IRA is dishonest because this comparison was used to support the insinuation that they too deserved to be arrested and detained without trial, just as the "British did the same with the IRA".

Remember, I was responding to your earlier post and these were your exact words: "The basis for not having trials was that no sane person would testify. They or their relatives would be killed. We are not talking about shoplifting or traffic offences here. The British did the same with the IRA."

You don't compare apples with oranges and say that what is right for apples must be right for oranges. You'd then have committed a red herring fallacy.
 

steffychun

Alfrescian
Loyal
No Singaporean has the right model for the country, yet some people are praised were praised as having right ideas.

I mean, in some overseas courses on development economics and politics, Singapore is still praised for its devleopment model and leadership as opposed to the pro free market, less government views of the West and the World Bank and IMF. Now these are not taught by some simple academic but by well known scholars such as Ha-Joon Chang and Joseph Stiglitz and those in Think Tanks such as the Overseas Development Institute.

People wil say that this is because history is written by the winners. But it's not like these academics simply turn their eye away from the ungly side of Singapore. They do recognise the lack of freedom etc etc....

But looking at people like Chee--how much of a Gandhi, Suu Kyi, North Korean Dissdent can the outside world see in him? None. Nothing close. He goes against what has already been created--an Asian economic model and society that has stood the test time

So unless it is suddenly re-written that Singapore was not the East Asian Tiger that did not use the neo-liberal style model of development, is not a country that opened up to foreign investment and trade, was not a country with infrastructure to support MNCs, was not a country that did not need Western foreign aid, Chee's plan will never work
 

Ramseth

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Ireland wanted out of UK after blaming England for the potato famine, it was allowed out of UK. However, there're Anglo Protestant descendants in Ireland who had taken roots in Ireland as their home for generations already who didn't want out of UK. Ireland was partitioned into Northern Ireland (part of UK) and Republic of Ireland (independent Gaelic Catholic majority). What IRA wanted was the entire Irish isle to be united under the the Republic, against the will of the majority of citizens in Northern Ireland and not really what the Republic of Ireland wants as unification means introduction of a sizeable Anglo Protestant representation in their Parliament. IRA was on a racial and religious crusade by terrorist means with no ends in sight, killing innocents along the way and bound to fail ultimately, and it did.
 
Last edited:

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Yellow

Right lets lay it out clearly. History means looking at both sides of the equation, your intent is to take Wade's article which only examines one side of the equation and in only one section of the equation and build a whole case out of it.

1. The Australians and Tunku and the High Commission were more worried about the Communist in Singapore then Selkirk was.

2. Firstly the communist insurgency was still on going in Malaya, they had not laid down their arms. Secondly even taking the quote from the ISC report at face value and btw I am starting to doubt Wade as I have not read the full ISC report in question, what it basically said was this according to wades selected excerpts and his arguments in full.

a. Yes they were communist
b. However they were not receiving direction from the CPM Moscow or CPC.
c. They did not want to over throw the gov by violent means, only peaceful constitutional means.

3. That might have been true in Singapore, but then since when is any fair analysis or evaluation done on the basis of Singapore alone ? Does the still salient fact that the communist in Malaya still had not laid down arms mean anything ? Which politician would trust the Communist when they were still armed ?

4. The Communist might not or might have received direction from the CPM in the report dated 1962, but no one would deny that the communist in Singapore were part and parcel of the CPM. pre 1962 and since god knows when it started.

5. Wades argument about the innocence of the communist cause in Singapore would only hold true if one claims the communist in SG were entirely different from the communist in Malaysian and also ignoring the armed insurgency which was still ongoing



Locke
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Yellow

Frankly, between Singapore and Cuba well Singapore would be all the more liberal and democratic. Scadanavian countries are socialist in orientation or social democracies and rather different from Communism and a dictatorship of the poletariat.

Vis sa vis how good or bad liberal democracies ah, Churchill put it best, " democracy is probably the worst form of government tried until you tried all others. "

Finally what are u arguing. Wade agree's that they were communist but peaceful communist......and thus they were wrong to be arrested. So are u debating and disagreeing and saying cold store arrested peaceful socialist and not peaceful communist ? You can't have it both ways.



Locke
 

Dreamer1

Alfrescian
Loyal
No Singaporean has the right model for the country, yet some people are praised were praised as having right ideas.

I mean, in some overseas courses on development economics and politics, Singapore is still praised for its devleopment model and leadership as opposed to the pro free market, less government views of the West and the World Bank and IMF. Now these are not taught by some simple academic but by well known scholars such as Ha-Joon Chang and Joseph Stiglitz and those in Think Tanks such as the Overseas Development Institute.

People wil say that this is because history is written by the winners. But it's not like these academics simply turn their eye away from the ungly side of Singapore. They do recognise the lack of freedom etc etc....

But looking at people like Chee--how much of a Gandhi, Suu Kyi, North Korean Dissdent can the outside world see in him? None. Nothing close. He goes against what has already been created--an Asian economic model and society that has stood the test time

So unless it is suddenly re-written that Singapore was not the East Asian Tiger that did not use the neo-liberal style model of development, is not a country that opened up to foreign investment and trade, was not a country with infrastructure to support MNCs, was not a country that did not need Western foreign aid, Chee's plan will never work
Dear Steffychun,

I do observe that you have bitterly attacked Dr Chee here.

To me Dr Chee is perhaps the best pupil of MM Lee,he must have spent much of his own time to seriously look over the various strategies used by LKY thro'out his political life.

Unfortunately he made several blunders which made his political carrer that much more troublesome!

If you do read LKY's speech to Russian students recently,he attributed his succsss as 90% due to good luck,this is the first time he has introduced this factor in his political life and I have watched him for more than 50 years.


Dr Chee does not have it,Dr Chee is not my man,and I am waiting for some one more cunning,more ruthless and more merciless than LKY.

Yes,Singapore is still widely praised all over the world including President Obama,but I believe many forummers here do agree that PAP has the top propaganda machine in this entire world!
 
Last edited:

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
I will make another attempt.

Both Barisan and the IRA were fighting for their beliefs. Both had political initiatives on the boil and both were prepared to use violence. Violence is never an immoral or evil approach to resolve an issue or go around an obstacle. Violence however is the last resort. That is the reason why nations however loving have standing armies. The soldiers are not trained in flower arrangements. They are trained in violence.

Barisan is the communist front. The people in Barisan are not doe eyed individuals who were mislead. They are neither puppets. They were however nobel, detemined, and were seeking a vision for their people that they thought was right. They were no different to the IRA. If it took violence, so be it.

The PAP has been very careful on how Barisan is portrayed because many of those that crossed over to the PAP and are with the PAP came from the same stock and ideology. That is the reason why it protrayal is grey till today. That is the reason why documents are sealed and paper are kept in the dark.

Do you know who started the first of a series of Chinese middle school rights in front of the Istana in 1952. Do you know which PAP politician was one of 3 pivotal person behind the Hock Lee bus riots. On 5th May 1955, old man in an uncharacteristic manner blurted out that he would chose communism over colonialism. A week later the riots occurred. He was in the same party and fully in control of those 3 men behind the riots.He saw the riots start and then took off on a holiday.

That is the reason why old man has been cocooned in the Istana grounds for 51 years fearful of his life. For the first 30 years, both he and his wife had only one friend who was not a relative - Dennis Bloodworth. Those of the generation knew him well. He did not ride the tiger. He groomed the tiger, he was feeding the tiger, he was training the tiger and he instigated the tiger.

If Lim Chin Siong, Fong, Lim Hock Siew and company were not with the communist and not into violence, maybe you can tell other here who were. The 3rd group were the progressives led by Richard Lim and AP Rajah who were the first choice for the British as they were pretty much the asian version of the British. However they had no local support.







Sorry to disappoint you, but no knots.

I stand by my assertion: to compare Lim Hock Siew & Co to IRA is dishonest because this comparison was used to support the insinuation that they too deserved to be arrested and detained without trial, just as the "British did the same with the IRA".

Remember, I was responding to your earlier post and these were your exact words: "The basis for not having trials was that no sane person would testify. They or their relatives would be killed. We are not talking about shoplifting or traffic offences here. The British did the same with the IRA."

You don't compare apples with oranges and say that what is right for apples must be right for oranges. You'd then have committed a red herring fallacy.
 
Last edited:

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Bro, you are going into minute details. He is saying that they are social activists, not at all associated with the communists and had no intention of violence. As far as he is concerned, the communists are a different lot.

That essentially means we are dealing with a newly identified group that has been mislabeled by old man. Its up to him to tel why he thinks it a new group.

Previous arguments from others have been that this group were the front, had been manipulated by the communist and they themselves had not interest in communism and had no desire to resort violence.

I think, you need to go back and get him to specify who this group is? And were they all about.

ps. the archives at Kew has been repeatedly used to claim that old man had been conspiring with the British. That is pretty much established. Its also a no brainer. These come from materials from the colonial offices looking after the colonies. These do not include materials at a local level unless they were sent as attachments to correspondence between London and Singapore.

The Special Branch did not have a reporting line to London. It reported to the Colonial secretary. The Kew archives however have records of local chaps playing around in London. These were compiled by Special Branch of the UK.There are files on Dennis Lee, John Eber, Lim Hong Bee, Goh Keng Swee and many others. A file was opened for old man because of his brother. His brother and Goh Keng Swee marched at a communist parade in Budapest while both were studying there. Special Branch intercepted a letter sent by Goh to Eu Chooi Yip explaining how euphoric he felt marching with the lot. Eu as you know went on to head the reds in Singapore.

Anyone who relies on the kew archives or the archives in Kolkata will not have any evidence on certain things so naturally there is no evidence.



Dear Yellow

Right lets lay it out clearly. History means looking at both sides of the equation, your intent is to take Wade's article which only examines one side of the equation and in only one section of the equation and build a whole case out of it.

1. The Australians and Tunku and the High Commission were more worried about the Communist in Singapore then Selkirk was.

2. Firstly the communist insurgency was still on going in Malaya, they had not laid down their arms. Secondly even taking the quote from the ISC report at face value and btw I am starting to doubt Wade as I have not read the full ISC report in question, what it basically said was this according to wades selected excerpts and his arguments in full.

a. Yes they were communist
b. However they were not receiving direction from the CPM Moscow or CPC.
c. They did not want to over throw the gov by violent means, only peaceful constitutional means.

3. That might have been true in Singapore, but then since when is any fair analysis or evaluation done on the basis of Singapore alone ? Does the still salient fact that the communist in Malaya still had not laid down arms mean anything ? Which politician would trust the Communist when they were still armed ?

4. The Communist might not or might have received direction from the CPM in the report dated 1962, but no one would deny that the communist in Singapore were part and parcel of the CPM. pre 1962 and since god knows when it started.

5. Wades argument about the innocence of the communist cause in Singapore would only hold true if one claims the communist in SG were entirely different from the communist in Malaysian and also ignoring the armed insurgency which was still ongoing



Locke
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
It was always a worry of old man that such a man or woman will arise as the phoenix in his shape and form.

Old man has a philisophy of approaching the offsprings of his adversaries and giving them good jobs and party affliation. In private circles he mentions that their parents were made of "sterner stuff". One wonders why. Also Ngiam comments about monopolising talents is also interesting. With his demise, the outlook will be interesting.


Dr Chee does not have it,Dr Chee is not my man,and I am waiting for some one more cunning,more ruthless and more merciless than LKY.

Yes,Singapore is still widely praised all over the world including President Obama,but I believe many forummers here do agree that PAP has the top propaganda machine in this entire world!
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear. Scroo

Yellow was quoting Wade as the gospel till I read the full paper, noted it's limitations and compared it to chin pengs own words . His logic then became hay wire.




Locke
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
I have seen Wade's work. I just hope that someone will step up. There are a number of people that know the equation even in academia but they are not prepared to step up.

There are however some interested parties that seem to pivot around institutions in South Australia that might make an attempt.

Dear. Scroo

Yellow was quoting Wade as the gospel till I read the full paper, noted it's limitations and compared it to chin pengs own words . His logic then became hay wire.




Locke
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Not exactly. The terrorists are now sitting in stormont as respectable politicians and leaders. They might not have the whole cake but they got a slice of it and including how it looks like.

Looks like you are not familiar with event where violence did lead to an outcome of sorts.

This is what PAP conditions people to think - that violence and terrorism are bad. In many cases violence is necessary to correct a wrong or to bring self-determination to an oppressed lot. The Americans threw out the British with guns and violence. They broke the existing British law in place and were certainly classified as terrorist (a term not in vogue then) by the British. The British did not sail out of Boston Harbour after gracefully handing over the country out of goodwill.





IRA was on a racial and religious crusade by terrorist means with no ends in sight, killing innocents along the way and bound to fail ultimately, and it did.
 

yellowarse

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Frankly, between Singapore and Cuba well Singapore would be all the more liberal and democratic.

I'm not too sure. Singapore has been termed an 'illiberal democracy' by Western observers. Given the government's extensive PR machine, its propensity to sue, and the many entrenched Western business and financial interests in the country, this is as far as they would go to describe Singapore.

In truth, from an economic angle, the PAP has veered so far from its socialist roots that it probably ranks right up there with the US as the world's most neoliberal country. With one difference: while the US government's share of private business is much lower than ours, it's been estimated that our gov't controls as much as 75% of the economy through the GLCs and TLCs. We also have a higher Gini coefficient than the US, the highest income inequality in the developed world.

From a social angle, we've never been liberal or libertarian. Rather, repeated revisions to the Consitution and statutory laws have rolled back so many of our rights and freedoms that we've become a quasi-fascist state in every sense except name. Using a compliant judiciary to further political repression further stymies our avenues of expression. One man walking down the street can be charged with staging a procession. The irony is that in communist countries like Cuba or China, it is a constitutional right for workers and unions to stage strikes and sit-ins to demand better working conditions.

Having a parliament with elections once every 5 years does not a 'democracy' make, if parliament is merely a rubber-stamp body; if constitutional rights are trampled with impunity; if the judiciary is beholden to the executive; if elections are rigged in favour of the incumbent; if the electoral overseeing body is not independent.

Sure, Singapore is a lot richer than Cuba, partly because of the crippling trade embargo by the US and its allies. Notwithstanding, between a communist country with egalitarian outcomes, income parity and a vast social safety net (though all limited by poverty) and a wealthy but quasi-fascist neoliberal country whose wealth is locked in the hands of big business, government-controlled entities and a minority of individuals and the masses have little voice, I'm not sure the latter is superior. If I'm poor and indigent and ill, Cuba would probably take better care of me than Singapore ever could.

Scadanavian countries are socialist in orientation or social democracies and rather different from Communism and a dictatorship of the poletariat.

You got my point. While all communists are ideologically socialists. not all socialists are communists. Not all socialists are violent. And not all socialists states are doomed to be dictatorships; there are flourishing social democracies as well, often with better socio-economic and happiness indices than rightwing capitalist countries (democratic or not).

So: do you arrest a bunch of people who profess to be socialists, if there's no evidence of their being a stooge of outlawed communist organizations, no evidence of either a history of violent activities or planning to resort to violence sometime in the future?

Vis sa vis how good or bad liberal democracies ah, Churchill put it best, " democracy is probably the worst form of government tried until you tried all others. "

That wasn't his exact quote, but I know what you mean, and I'd agree. Just that today's democracies — even Western liberal democracies — have deviated so far from the Athenian ideal that one questions the whether the majoritarian concept has long been subverted by powerful lobby groups, corrupt politicians and usurpation by the private corporate interest.

But Churchill's quote is moot: Singapore is not, never was, a democracy.

Freedom House's 2009 report has categorically stated that "Singapore is not an electoral democracy."

Wade agree's that they were communist but peaceful communist......and thus they were wrong to be arrested.

Don't put words in Wade's mouth. He did not say that the detainees were communists, 'peaceful' or otherwise. Throughout his discourse he used the more precise, less value-laden term "Leftists".

He said, "There was, it must be underlined no basis for arresting people in Singapore simply because they were Communist." And quoted the Office of the UK Commissioner as saying: “There is no law in Singapore under which it was an offence to be a Communist or under which Communism as such is unlawful.”

He also went to great lengths to debunk "The Communist Conspiracy" as a bogus legitimation (based on declassified papers) used by the British to justify Cold Store, whose actual motivations were political and opportunistic in nature. The extensive transpired correspondence shows that the British colonial authorities and ISC knew that these people were not communists, had no violent inclinations, had no links to CPM, Beijing or Moscow and there was no basis for arresting them. But they went ahead with the arrests as to ensure a particular geopolitical outcome favourable to them.

Wade's only concession to communism was this statement: "In July 1962, the British noted that that while they accepted that Lim Chin Siong was a Communist, there was no evidence that he was receiving directions from the C.P.M., Peking or Moscow."

But he qualified it by following it up with: "Our impression is that Lim is working very much on his own and that his primary objective is not the communist millennium but to obtain control of the constitutional government of Singapore."

Nevertheless, Wade's reading of the papers here re LCS may even be called into question. In the book Comet in our sky: Lim Chin Siong in history (Tan Jing Quee, Jomo K.S.; 2001), also based on declassified UK Archives papers, Dr Greg Poulgrain of Griffith University in an essay observes that the British Governor of Singapore and his Chief Secretary in their reports to London stated that the police found no evidence to establish that Lim was Communist.

Just so, LCS himself, to the day he died, has consistently denied being a communist, though his socialist credentials were never in question.

The only person who is still persistently calling LCS a communist despite conclusive evidence to the contrary is LKY himself.

So are u debating and disagreeing and saying cold store arrested peaceful socialist and not peaceful communist?

Here's what I'm arguing:

1. Those arrested were Leftists first and foremost. The key Barisan Sosialis members were definitely socialists, but there was no evidence they were communists or were a front for foreign communist politburos. They were by and large a committed, idealistic, nationalistic group intent on establishing socialist governance througn peaceful constitutional means. There were probably some dyed-in-the-wool communists in the 111, but small in number, politically inconsequential and not the true targets of the operation.

2. There was no evidence that any of them, much less the targeted politicians, had planned or were planning any violent activities.

3. There was thus no legitimate basis for the Cold Store arrests.

4. That the 'Communist Conspiracy' was just an excuse to get rid of formidable rivals who were a challenge to LKY's power and to further British policy in forging a Greater Malaysia compliant to British interests.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
At least some progress that there were communists in that lot. Maybe you can tell who they are and what separates them from rest.

There were probably some dyed-in-the-wool communists in the 111, but small in number, politically inconsequential and not the true targets of the operation.
 

yellowarse

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
I have seen Wade's work. I just hope that someone will step up. There are a number of people that know the equation even in academia but they are not prepared to step up.

I too think it's time Singaporean historians step to the plate. The time is right, the resources available for a in-depth re-evaluation of the myths surrounding Cold Store in local academia.
 

yellowarse

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
At least some progress that there were communists in that lot.

Some progress? Did you read my post #169 in response to your post #166?

I wrote: "There probably were communists among the 111, not many since the most radical ones were still underground but the point remains that the key intended targets of this exercise were NOT communists but formidable leftist ex-colleagues of LKY whose brand of socialist and nationalist politics was a threat not just to the PAP, but also to whatever economic capital the Brits had hoped to milk out of the nation post-Independence in the grip of the Cold War."

My stand has been consistent: I don't share your proclivity to twist and turn my words.
 
Top