http://changingminds.org/disciplines/change_management/kubler_ross/kubler_ross.htm

The emotional graph says it all

I just want to add, when I say 30yrs of experience in financial mkts, I’m not saying I know better. In fact, the more crises you sit through, the only thing you’re sure of is how little we know. Valuations, risk models, basic assumptions, etc are all turned on its head.

We are not just dealing with the usual need to be profitable, now we are dealing with risk of ruin. Volatility and certainty does not make a good platform. Financial institutions that were too big to fail have gotten even bigger. If not for massive govt injection, we would be in a 30s styled depression right now. But that is only postponing the inevitable.

Pardon the monologue, the other thing is that at 30yrs, I will be throwing alot of investment books out the window.

Peace.

In this case, the benchmark was wikipedia. So ok wikipedia it is. When shown even wikipedia is disputing its case, the dreaded anons of this world suddenly become blind. They would not see their own mistakes. They can yell atop their soapbox govt is not transparent, not responsive, they are there to point out the govt’s ‘mistakes’. But when confronted with their own mistakes, they will simply ignore the discussion. They would actually morph into the very PAP stoic silence they so despised.

And this is exactly how every anon I’ve met over the years operate. I fully understand why that is the case. I was just hoping this time round, I may actually find an anon with an intelligence slightly better than a pimple. But I guess I was overly optimistic.

And on and on it goes in almost every anti-PAP forum. The hypocritical pimples on platform shoes are all giving anti-PAP types a bad name. They drive even fence sitters to the arms of the PAP. They try and pretend there is a debate, when in fact even a simple discussion to justify why one would brand a person ‘brainwashed’ over 6 para of opinion didn’t go beyond round two.

And so thanks to forums like this, we will at least know who not to vote for. And as for that pimple on platform shoes.. here … have a peanut.. great job.

The posters involved in the discussion on this blog, in many ways, is a miniature representation of the political situation in S’pore. As we know, there are 3 groups of readers in TR – pro-ruling party, pro-opposition and non-partisan. Anonymous, you are pro-opposition and I think you see jiak as pro-ruling party. I’m a non-partisan as I will support any side with good ideas for the people, regardless of their party affiliation.

The discussion in this thread presents an interesting situation. Instead of the usual pro-opposition people criticizing an existing policy of the govt, the table is turned with the debate focusing on a proposition by a pro-opposition supporter, which is you, Anonymous.

My observation as a non-partisan is that the pro-opposition people usually aren’t any better than the ruling party when comes to defending their position. TR’s experience with WP is a good example. In fact, the tactics used are so similar as the ruling party that people can easily mistake them for ruling party people defending the govt policies. If oppositions think they can win over votes from the middle ground with this kind of performance, they will likely be disappointed like in many previous elections. The simple reason is the oppositions have not shown to the people that they have better conduct and idea than the incumbents.

Some may argue that people need to put in more opposition people in the parliament to give them a chance to prove themselves, but this has already been done in the past and the result was unfortunately an utter dismay. Others may disagree and believe people should just vote blindly for the oppositions regardless of the quality of the candidates for the sake of opposing existing unpopular policies. This “vote blindly” tactic itself is a betrayal of their own selfish intention to reap political benefits at the people’s expense. The oppositions really need more people who can put forward their own ideas with strong convincing reasons, like Kenneth Jeyaretnam.

Criticizing existing policies is the easy part, but giving better propositions to help the people is what should matter most to the discerning citizens. The people who had lived in Nee Soon Central and Bukit Gombak under the opposition before are probably in better position to attest to this statement. This is maybe why MM is so confident that the ruling party will still be in power for at least the next 10 years.

To save yourselves of those impossible-to-erase embarassment of this public self-humiliation (not my fault) and anger, buy yourselves a new brain each! One that is a little more intelligent than “Baby”, my dog.

After all 30 years of investment expertise behind you, Jiak, you must be very rich by now. You can afford to buy a calmer reflection dog’s brain.

And Gaibang? Oh well, you must be a pyschic. Singapore Big Sweep must have made you richer and faster than 30 years of struggling with the tiny Singapore stock market often plagued by meltdown compared to Jiak. Yours won’t be a 80 bagger but millions of baggers since your capital outlay is only $2 and it is in SINGAPORE DOLLARS only., not the more expensive variety called Australian dollar!

I envy both of you. I really do, believe me. Anymore funny circus shows from your end minus your dropped underpants? Ooops!

ROTFLMAO

To that clone of Anonymous, why choose a self contradictory moniker? Can’t think of anything nice to call yourself or are you too afraid to taint your usual moniker? LOL

Even a monkey can do that.

“There are significant flaws in the way the provisions of the FOI Act have been drafted if it is to be true to its aims. A chief problem is the Act’s low legislative ambition, highlighted by its ambiguous objects clause, extensive and
broadly defined exemption provisions, and unclear guidelines in relation to costs. Only legislative reform can combat these deficiencies in the Act.”

While you pretend the Aussie FOIA as transparent that affords full disclosure, opponents are calling for REFORMS.

And all the time you’re trying to tell people you’re some sort of expert in FOIA. Nobody can debate with you.

You don’t know what the heck you’re talking about. It’s not my opinion. The very shadow govt of Aust made that assesssment. You were talking through your backside.

In fact, the formulation of Aussie FOIA had been compromised. Aussie compliance is worse than that of the US. Re Thomson vs AWb, re McKinnon vs the Aussie Treasury.

Know or don’t know?

Freaking monkey.