Out of context of the correct context
Yesterday, I published a blog entry to highlight Mukhriz's “sterling” performances in Parliament.
That article covers:
[1] Mukhriz’s performance in answering a question from MP Sungai Siput on Peak Oil concept or theory, on 1 July 2008; and
[2] Mukhriz’s absence despite his scheduled oral question, on 29 October 2008.
Padedoh came out with a blog article on the 1st part or element of my blog. He described that Mukhriz was wrong to argue that oil price was determined by market speculation as it was, based on his research, established by real demand and supply.
Jebat Must Die replied to Padedoh’s article and said, among others, that:
[1] The extract of Mukhriz’s speech was taken out of context
That article covers:
[1] Mukhriz’s performance in answering a question from MP Sungai Siput on Peak Oil concept or theory, on 1 July 2008; and
[2] Mukhriz’s absence despite his scheduled oral question, on 29 October 2008.
Padedoh came out with a blog article on the 1st part or element of my blog. He described that Mukhriz was wrong to argue that oil price was determined by market speculation as it was, based on his research, established by real demand and supply.
Jebat Must Die replied to Padedoh’s article and said, among others, that:
[1] The extract of Mukhriz’s speech was taken out of context
[2] His speech was delivered in July 2008
[3] Oil price was indeed manipulated by oil speculators
Subsequent to this, Padedoh made a public apology and a blog-entry correction. Padedoh blog said that [1] the speech was taken out of context and [2] it was presented in August 2008.
The aforesaid made me to smile, as smiling is a good face exercise, a sodoqah and is a natural reflection when you read or see something that is funny.
It is funny to me BECAUSE that speech was never taken out of context, it was only READ and USED out of context BY OTHERS - that generated a reply, within the context of the tampered platform.
The intention of the extraction of the speech was to highlight Mukhriz’s response to a question raised by MP Sungai Siput on Peak Oil concept or theory. For that, this blogger had to take the pre and post sections of the question-and-answer. Please observe the whole text carefully.
It was not my intention to raise the issue of oil speculation as it was a very easy topic to everyone – yes, one of the factors that influenced the unprecedented movement of oil prices circa end 2007 to the 3rd quarter 2008, was speculative trading. That I agree.
But, that was not the point. The point was: Mukhriz was not able to relate Peak Oil concept with his argument. Please observe again my comments in my previous blog entry. You will note that the highlights and the comments were consistent, in fact very consistent on that very topic.
Hence, it was not me who used it out of context, as claimed by JMD and, in a way, echoed by Padedoh.
It was funny – it’s just like a kindergarten fight. Smile again. But what to do, you can only smile.
Hence, JMD was right to correct Padedoh, and likewise, Padedoh was right to get his entry corrected. I would support JMD on this as it is not me who would exploit and extract something out-of-context. Nevertheless, Padedoh admitted his mistake and came out with the apologies, and he should be forgiven for that unintentional mistake.
But, my blog entry remains as the truth and point of reference on Mukhriz’s inability to respond intelligently and fittingly on the Peak Oil theory or concept question that was raised by MP Sungai Siput.
P/S:
To Padedoh: Please note that the speech was delivered in July 2008 and not in August 2008. You can refer to my blog for the correct date. Smile :-). Tak pa, silap macam ni biasa lah...
To JMD: Mintak Tumpang Lalu. Smile :-)
