I wrote the previous post "God, The Resting Place For Man" on Saturday evening. Took me more than three hours to compose my thoughts and put them down properly. In order to appear fair and courteous to Daniel Chew, I posted a link on his blog to that entry. He has since deleted my comment. That post was never meant to be a defense or an apologia. It was simply what it is (as are all our blog-postings) - we write down what we think and feel. But it appears that Daniel Chew is too much an obedient puppy to his Illuminati-handler that he refuses to even read that post or my comment (which he deleted immediately). As to be expected, the Illuminati-handler applauded Daniel's decision and posted his digital pat-on-the-back:
vincit omnia veritas said...
Now I truly understand the aphorism:"An idle mind is the devil's workshop."
Dear (Idle) Edmund and Alvin,
I will not publish your comments. Until you have learned basic civility and honesty in making informed comments with integrity, I will delete all your comments - so don't waste your time over at my blog.
Since you are so free, I welcome you to "watch". You can continue slandering me and my friends; do what you want. We do not hate you; we just pity you fellows.
And I also THANK you folks for slandering me. Part of sanctification is learning how to take wrong.
So all in all, I extend my sincere gratitude to you folks for teaching me valuable lessons: if Christ as Savior is crucified for no sin of His, why couldn't we learn to take wrong?
One of the clearest ways to spot a fellow member of the Reptilian Illuminati Brotherhood is to (instinctively) detect a coldness, an inhumanity and a deliberate effort taken by such a suspect to mask his true intentions. In fact, they usually go to such lengths that it's clear to everyone around them but themselves (and their brainwashed cronies, like Daniel, for instance). They make statements like "Part of sanctification is learning how to take wrong". To the uninitiated, they'll immediately think that he is so-very Christian since he believes in "Sanctification". It's really just Brotherhood double-talk. A sanctified Christian will NEVER be required to make a show of sanctification (like one is so scared that others will not acknowledge it). At other times, such Brotherhood stooges will also say things like "Be angry and sin not - I'll remember that. But I am entitled to be angry." Always be cautious of such inhumanity. Even in the face of anger, he'll still try his best to maintain his cool-composure (and again, make a show of his sanctification).
Pltypus also posted several quotes from this Illuminati spokesman in previous entries. He meant to only display further evidence of their misdeeds and to review them. Neither Pltypus (nor myself, La Tey, or anyone else who posts their comments here) are out to slander him, as he repeatedly claimed. The evidence speak for themselves. We are only reviewing them for our readers. Now, a review is a private opinion that even we idle-brained folks are entitled to. If the person whose works are being reviewed is unhappy at the unfavourable reviews, he is entitled to post a defense over at his own site (where he's sovereign anyway - as he repeatedly informed everyone - it's the place where he can delete anyone's comments or refuse entry to anyone who does not play by his rules). Psychologists have repeatedly explained that the R-Complex (Reptilian Complex) in the brain is given to such aggression, ritualism and excessive regard for hierarchy and/or protocols/policies/rules. Hence, this is the Illuminati spokesman behaving in his element. It is to be expected. Notice that politicians in power, desperate to hold on to their positions of power react in exactly the same way towards bloggers who write unfavourable posts about them! They usually go the extra-mile by using the police to arrest bloggers who post "seditious" remarks about them - read: anything that threatens their continued autonomy is "seditious". These men are so convinced that they have the right to rule, the right to power, the right to their bloated opinions in the blogosphere (in the case of the Fundamentalist Bloggers) that anything unfavourable towards them are defined as "slander" or "sedition".
Since, we're on the issue of disagreements on the blogosphere, let me point out another case of Daniel's offensive behaviour online. Check out this entry ("My Answer To Daniel Chew") by another author/blogger, Richard Abanes. Note that the blogger, unlike the Singapore Fundamentalists indoctrinated by the Illuminati Spokesman, is human. He is interested in "pop culture: the arts, entertainment, religion, and videogames". Hence it may come as a surprise to him that to disagree with Daniel Chew on such a critically serious issue as whether to like/hate Rick Warren is possibly inviting the "anathema" of the Elite Fundamentalists From SIN.