Once upon a time a man named Edward de Bono explained his theory of ‘lateral thinking’ with the following story (in kaytee’s own words wakakaka):
A bastard of an old loan shark lusted after a sweetie whose father was pathetically poor thus vulnerable to borrowing money from the Ah Long. As the story went, Dad was in deep deep deep, very deep financial shit with the Ah Long when the assh*le decided to pounce and satisfy his evil lust.
He told the sweetie to bet on a 50-50 chance game, for her to pick either a white or black pebble from a bag. Picking up a white pebble would mean she wins, with her father’s debt completely cleared, while picking up a black would require her to marry the prick. It was an 'all or nothing' gamble, an offer which Don Vito Corleone would have said that sweetie couldn't refuse.
Coincidentally where Ah Long and the sweetie were standing, the ground was covered with white and black pebbles.
Of course Ah Long intended to win by cheating so he placed two black stones in the bag. Sweetie saw the bastard doing that but knew she was in a fix. If she made noise, Ah Long would make her father’s life hell.
So we were told that she employed ‘lateral thinking’
She picked a pebble (obviously black) from the bag but ... ooops a daisy ... she dropped it on the ground. She bersandiwara and apologised to Ah Long, but asserted that all was not lost as whatever colour pebble was left in the bag would mean the one she dropped, accidentally of course, would be of the opposite colour (in other words, a winning white).
That’s Edward de Bono’s explanation of what ‘lateral thinking’ is, where sweetie won without being confrontational with Ah Long. To kaytee it’s just another term for ‘creative thinking’.
Story No 2
Once upon a time a man named
A bastard of a sadistic oppressor lusted after a confession from a young man for nefarious purposes. In the interrogation he killed the victim, perhaps accidentally, but nonetheless a crime that would have been classified at least as ‘manslaughter’, one requiring imprisonment of the Mossad-like assh*le.
To cut the story short, he and backers attempted to pass the death off as suicide but the public did not accept that implausible bullsh*t because facts and logic stood in the bloody way of what he thought would be a convenient escape.
His backers had to think of a way out, one that won’t implicate the draconian Shabak-like (Shin Bet like) clone with a crime (this one mana boleh lah), but provide that extra something beyond just a mere statement of ‘suicide’, though mind you, not too much, just a wee sweetener for the public to punish the prick with a slap or maybe even two on his f* wrist, which was covered with the victim's blood.
So, they thought ‘creative thinking’ was in order, with a new inquiry. The aim was to win without complete denial of some (light) form of punishment to satisfy the angry crowd.
Coincidentally, the finding came out that death was indeed by suicide due to the weak character of the victim, but, here’s what they thought would be the wee sweetener (probably arrived at weeks after the inquiry report was submitted), the cause of the suicide was contributed by incorrect interrogation techniques, deemed as aggressive, inappropriate and therefore in violation of the regulations.
The Aman (Agaf HaModi'in)-like assh*le would then be dealt with by an administrative tribunal for his harsh interrogation techniques since it was just a case of poor judgement and not a ‘crime’ - perhaps with a small pay deduction or more probably, a promotion sideways. An administrative slap-on-the-wrist was the maximum punishment acceptable for 'The Chosen Ones' who would/must never be ever responsible for any crimes - don't believe me, hey man, ask the Palestinians.
Recall, I posted yesterday in The missing public trust where I asked “Does anyone (other than UMNO and cronies) trust … [any Malaysian public institution]?”
But praise The Lord, and thank goodness for atheists like me, Story No 2 did not happen in Malaysia, but elsewhere … in B****Land.