Not to be taken as a threat, although any and all manipulation of public dialogue very much is a literal threat to the lives of each member of the public.

So although I did and am saying that you should die for doing that, I only mean to say so by the dynamic of it being found to be true that to manipulate free speech is a threat to the lives of the members of the public and in the same way that it was done blatantly and a clear message in everybody's faces, and I only mean to say that it should occur by professional officers of the law and the trained officers who uphold the safety and defense of our public and are licensed to take upon themselves such acts, entrusted by the state to do so.

I myself detest violence and don't believe in violence. But I do believe in justice and honoring of the life and well-being of the innocent.

Can it be denied that those who threaten our lives would of course deserve to have their lives threatened back? Well, then you would have to admit that you threatened our lives now wouldn't you? Since I've responsibly stated the disclaimer that I am only suggesting there be a threat to your life if the underlying condition of your actions of manipulating and hindering free speech of the citizens is being a threat to the people's lives and factually true as being that - then it also becomes dependent on that prerequisite factor being admitted by you that you at Yahoo have been a threat to our lives - in order for Yahoo to claim that my suggested threat to theirs is at all an actual suggestion of threat. This is an important moral issue and it is not epistemological so much as our responsibility to the sincerity of our aim for justice, and the upholding of justice in society, if we do in fact honor justice. I demand an answer to this dilemma, and I do stand by my conviction and of course, would testify that under the conditions of the organizations' mannerisms being a threat to my life, and the lives of the members of the public, I do indeed state that it would then be the members of that organization - not limited to Yahoo, but any organization - whom should die instead of the public, and as it is in many cases of legally derived acceptance of the killing of persons it is only ever always under the specific context of saving the lives of the innocent members of the public that such actions by law enforcing agencies and officers are deemed justified in the action followed through.

Therefore, for an agency to direct snipers to take out the initiating and enforcing members of Yahoo for their threat to the public - if indeed it cannot be denied reasonably that the hindering of free speech and manipulation of free speech is, in fact, direct threat to the lives of the public - would be the same thing as those same snipers taking out members of a terrorist organization who threaten the public with the threat of loss of life in any other way.

What do you think? Please do offer your logical reasoning as this is a very pressing issue that we as a community with open dialogue and free speech should talk about.

28 July 2021

Yahoo Hong Kong Limited
Room 2802
28/F., Sunning Plaza
10 Hysan Avenue
Hong Kong
Birkenstock Asia Pacific Limited
19th Floor, 299 QRC
287-299 Queen’s Road Central
Hong Kong
Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Sale of fake Birkenstock slippers through Yahoo Hong Kong website

I am a long time user of Birkenstock slippers and have been using their products for over 20 years.

One week ago, I saw an ad on Yahoo.hk website that there was a special outlet sale of Birkenstock slippers within a limited time offer. The ad showed clearly pictures of Birkenstock shoes and slippers as well as the outlet store of Birkenstock (one of which was in Kwun Tong). I offered one pair of white slippers (trusting that the ad was real outlet sale of Birkenstock slippers as it was shown on Yahoo.hk website) at the price of HK$280, which should be paid on delivery.

At 3:21 pm on 24 July 2021, Saturday, I received a message from telephone no.: 90316847 noting “Please note your ordered item had arrived in HK & will be delivered to you in the next 2 days. Our delivery staff will contact you shortly. Thank you!”

At 12:56 pm on 26 July 2021, Monday, I received a call from telephone no.: 60171795, the delivery man, noting that the goods would be delivered to my place of residence shortly and I was required to pay $280 upon delivery. As I was not at home, I instructed my helper to pay the money of $280 to the delivery man when he arrived with the package.

When I got home on Monday, I opened the package and noted that the slippers delivered were no way near to a real pair of Birkenstock slippers, which I normally wear. The slippers do not have any logo or size and the materials used is far off from being comfortable. I am very certain that it is a fake pair of Birkenstock slippers.

I wanted to return the goods purchased but I could not find any name of the company, the address or the contact number on the delivery slip of the package. I tried to call and leave a message on the telephone no.:90316817 which had sent me a message on Saturday, 24 July 2021 but could not get through the number and there was no reply to my message.

At around 2:20 p.m. of today, i.e. 28 July 2021, I called the delivery man at 60171795 and he asked me to talk to the office at 27308580 directly on the matter. So I called the office of 順航速遞有限公司(SH Cargo Ltd) at 27308580. A lady answered the call; she refused to tell me the name, address and contact number of the sender of the goods but said that she would leave a message to the goods owner and asked them to reply to my message. Up to the time of sending this letter, I have not heard from the goods owner.

Not only that I am disappointed with being cheated, I am also very concerned with the dishonesty of the merchant. After thinking over of the matter again and again, I am the concerned with the possibility of the continued crime to be committed by this group of people and this will result in more people be cheated by purchasing the goods from this merchant trusting that it is real Birkenstock outlet sales on Yahoo.hk website. Accordingly, I think it is only right that I should put forward the whole case to Yahoo.hk and Birkenstock for consideration and actions so as to avoid more damages to be suffered by other people and the respective name of Yahoo.hk and Birkenstock to be negatively affected.

I hope that you can take a serious look at the matter raised and adopt the appropriate actions as necessary.

If you need any further information on the above, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at telephone no.: 61127796 or by email winniekong777@gmail.com.

Regards,

Winnie Kong

Nazi propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels was astonished by the effectivness of his "Big Lie" tactic. After the war, the Soviets copied and improved on Goebbels Big Lie. And now U.S. media elites, who famously bragged that they could "sell ice cubes to Eskimos," have improved on the Big Lie tactic by refusing to publish any comments. That way there can be no facts or opinions that contradict the blatant propaganda that pretends to be news reporting.

What we're left with is no different than Herr Goebbels Nazi propaganda, or the erstwhile Soviets annual claims that their 5-year agricultural Plan would again exceed projections.

What is Yahoo afraid of? That someone, somewhere might post a good idea? Or that a reader might be critical of a "news" report? Here's a current example, from today's Yahoo news feed:

New York City's "...Board of Elections has managed to vindicate the self-serving and politically corrosive mendacity of Donald Trump."

With that kind of "news," why would Yahoo even need opinion articles? To bash readers over the head again, with the same kind of hyper-partisan propaganda?

Yahoo used to provide a forum for everyone to post their opinion. Has the price of pixels increased so much that Yahoo can no longer afford a reader comment section? Or is indoctrinating the public too much fun?

Bring back the Comments section, or Ima skedaddle — to somewhere that lets me vent after I read the news.

Because we don't need propaganda spoon-fed to us, we get that everywhere else. Let us comment, or lettuce Romaine!