I would like thank malaysiakini for publishing Dr Farish A Noor's latest trilogy: [#1]A phantom menace[/#]; [#2]An epic in the making?[/#]; [#3]Shot at sunrise[/#].

I also thank the writer for his articles. And true to his style, they were well-researched and presented.

Although I might not always agree with his arguments, the two things one cannot take away from him is his excellent command of the English language and his sense of responsibility.

The need here, to stress on the language is because there are other malaysiakini columnists who still write nonsense and most notably, "...all these arguments are premised on the assumption that..." (James Wong Wing On's [#4]The anti-imperialist script[/#], Feb 8) and, "...wily PAS will win the next general election in a walkaway..." (Harun Rashid's [#5]The end of the road[/#], Feb 10).

I mentioned the sense of responsibility earlier because Farish almost never puts forward his assumptions, without forgetting to quote the sources, lest they be unsubstantiated.

For these reasons I am of the opinion that he is undeniably the best columnist in the malaysiakini stable.

The main reason I am writing this is because I am sick and tired of seeing the "bad" criticising the "good".

As is usual, the "bad" alleges something but never bothered to prove the allegations. The "bad" always appeal to the emotional but never the rational self. The "bad" almost always contradict themselves.

This brings us to George's letter, [#6]It ain't necessarily so, Farish[/#] (Feb 12).

If George insists on comparing Malaysia with Indonesia and Singapore on the - oppression of the poor and weak by the rich and powerful - issue, then, please do some research and write about it.

If George insists that, "Anwar's role was to provide Mahathir 'the Islamist voice' reflects a common theme of the article with no evidence for it", then he should read the first instalment of the trilogy, for, I am certain that he must have missed it.

By the way, George, who? Why are some people afraid of their own names? Or, are they just embarrassed to be known by their proper names?

(Dare I suggest that, in future, the use of pseudonyms be discouraged?)

Anyway, if George insists on implying some "hidden truths" about the Memali affair then please furnish the evidence instead of leading us on with questions like: "Was he...?"; "Why was...?"; "Were they...?"

It's like the clich, "Pigs might fly". Some people would imply that pigs might actually fly if pigs had wings! But, if pigs had wings, could they fly? And if pigs had wings and could fly, which way forward would they fly? Ironically, there is a proverb that says, "Pigs fly in the air with their tails forward."

The ensuing argument on the above example would be endless, with possibilities of going off the tangent not entirely remote.

So, do not let our emotions run away with us. After all, the rational self can only argue that since the clich "Pigs might fly" means, "It is impossible" and that is all that is of concern. The sooner we accept that reality the better it will be for all of us. In other words, if one can't prove it, then please keep it to oneself. And if one must challenge the writer, then by all means do. Make sense, please!

Unless of course, one wishes to propagate hatred!

Anyhow, if we were in Germany there would be no cause for me to apologise for using the word "pig" because das Schwein, in German, need not necessarily be taken as offensive. The colloquial expression hab' Schwein gehabt means to be lucky or fortunate, even though the literal translation is, "have had a pig". Odd, that!

But please do not say to a German-speaking person, du Schwein! because in this instance it means what it is supposed to mean, i.e. "You pig!" Chances are high that the German-speaking person will interpret your remark as offensive.

Speaking of offensive words, I am reminded of Dina Zaman's article, [#7]Canine capers and religious dogma[/#] (Feb 2), in which she aired her desire to own a dog.

Dina asked, "Heavens, can't a woman fantasise?"

But, of course, she has every right to fantasise and for that matter, she has the freedom to fantasise on anything worth fantasising - even about her fantastic righteous-but-Russell-Crowe-loving-but-married-woman fantasy friend. But please remember one thing; some fantasies are best kept a secret lest one is not prepared to be shocked in return.

Let's face it. It's only democratic that if one is willing to shock others with one's fantastic fantasy, then it is only fair that one is prepared to hear the equally shocking replies, isn't it? Can't have everything our way, now, can we?

As for Dina's fantasy about owning a dog? Well, I hope her friend's argument - cleansing yourself with mud seven times as proof that dogs are dirty - would not put her off. After all, how many times have you seen "Muslims" who drink alcohol rinsing their mouths with mud seven times afterwards?

Although, in my humble opinion, the best excuse to not own a dog is found in the dialogue of the movie, Battlefield Earth starring John Travolta:

"...according to the Klinko historians... the species is called, dog!"

"Dog?"

"Yes!"

"Obviously the superior race... having the man-animal chauffeured around."

"Dogs did prove to be more cooperative than man-animals... for some reason they weren't as useful when it comes to manual labour."

That is enough to put me off but, maybe not you, eh?

Finally, it is a fact that we live in Malaysia and with this in mind, I have to offer my apologies for any misunderstanding that might have been caused by the "liberal" usage of "pigs" and "dogs". It was never the intention, and never will it be, to imply anything by them.

Keep up the good work malaysiakini and keep those articles coming, Farish!