Questions on Sound Business Practice

As we all know, the thing called “sound business practice” requires correct thinking and good perspective on things. Everyday, we encounter some difficult questions, some of them may become the basis of our business judgments. The intent of this page is to encourage anyone to ask the question  pertaining to business, and I will surely provide a good answer to it for free.

A friend asked me two days ago and this is her question:

“Someone offers me a free installation services but he provides the materials to be installed, shall I accept it?”

ANSWER:

“Reject it. In business, when someone offers you an advantage at their own expense, it is something either with a concealed intent or a fraudulent element. Do not take the bait of “free services”, it will indirectly ruin your expenses. In philosophy it says, ‘free labor can avail of an unlimited favor’. I hope it helps you.”

You can ask your question too.

PUBLIC DEBATE: RELIABILITY OF CREATION

1999, Somewhere else in this globe.

Pastor: Yes, everything is created by the Supreme God.

Barrister79: How certain are you about it?

Pastor: Very certain. It is in the Bible, in Genesis.

Barrister79: I am not asking you if it is in the Bible or not. How true is it?

Pastor: It is the word of God. It is true, of course.

Barrister79: You seemed to have no understanding of the question, Pastor. Alright, since you are talking about Genesis, I think it is proper to start at the beginning. Can you please read Genesis 1:1?

Pastor: [stated the verse with his memory] “In the beginning the God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Genesis:1:1-2

Barrister79: Is that what you call proof word of god?

Pastor: Yes.

Barrister79: Is it not a direct declaration of the writer?

Pastor: God instructed him.

Barrister79: Where in the Genesis that god instructed his or her writer to write something for him?

Pastor: What do you mean?

Barrister79: Authority. The authority of the writer to write for god.

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: No answer. How did the writer know the earth has no form and it was void?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: No answer. How did the writer know it was the spirit of god that moved in the face of the waters?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: No answer. Was the writer a real witness of creation?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: Was the writer present while god is in the process of creation and witnessed the entire incidents?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: Why can’t you just tell all of us that the entire tales of  creation is a matter of theology? No need to answer this question, I think we are not interested with your theology.

CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THE THEOLOGY OF SPIRIT

On the later part of the direct examination, Bishop Shrewd strategically managed to propound his last two questions:

Bishop Shrewd: Considering all those presentations, can you please tell us your educational qualifications and studies in relation with your thesis on the existence of the spirit?

Rev. Swindler: I obtained my Bachelor of Christian Ministry in 1970; Bachelor of Theology in 1973; Master of Arts in Theology in 1975; and Doctor of Theology in 1979. All from Harvard University.

Bishop Shrewd: Now, can you categorically state that spirit exists in reality?

Rev. Swindler: Affirmative.

Bishop Shrewd: Thank you, Reverend.

Arbiter: Cross-examination, any?

Barrister79: Reverend, in all years of your studies, have you come to directly observe spirits?

Rev. Swindler: Yes, in many ways.

Barrister79: I am not asking about the “many ways”, Reverend. Did you understand the question?

Bishop Shrewd: Is that a sort of an insult, sir?

Barrister79: You have the right to take it as such, Bishop. I was asking about the direct observation on spirits based on the assertion of its real existence. Was it difficult to understand?

Arbiter: Are you asking of an observation based on physical contact?

Barrister79: I want to know if that is what he meant with his statement that spirit exists in reality.

Bishop Shrewd: That is preposterous, Your Honor. Spirits does not have physical bodies. Its reality is not based on material substance as what is established in the direct examination, this Holy Tribunal has the record.

Barrister79: That is the reason why I am asking, Your Honor, about the Reverend’s direct observation to check whether the reality he is talking is excusively a product of his studies or something which we could possibly know by virtue of the object which could be directly observed.

Bishop Shrewd: I am requesting for an order, Your Honor. I recommend to aim his examination on the term “reality” as the foundation which is ought to be laid.

Arbiter: Comment from the cross-examiner.

Barrsiter79: That is improper, Your Honor. It is my understanding that there is no reality other than the observable reality. If the purpose of the Bishop’s obstruction is to prevent me from asking any further question, then I will yield should they admit that the reality they are talking are mere concepts and not the objective reality. Now, if I may proceed, Your Honor?

Arbiter: Please proceed.

Barrister79: Thank you! Reverend, do you know that every real object has a component?

Rev. Swindler: Yes, I am aware of it.

Barrister79: Are you also aware that only nothing is composed of nothing?

Rev. Swindler: Ahhh… Yes.

Barrister79: Do you know that there is no reality when there is no composition which makes it real?

Bishop Shrewd: Your Honor, the examiner was just playing the semantics of language.

Barrister79: We can stop playing, Bishop, if the reality of your spirits will be established. Allow me to proceed, Your Honor!

Arbiter: Answer the question.

Rev. Swindler: Yes, of course. No composition – No reality.

Barrsiter79: Good. [smiling] Now, can you tell us what composed the spirit you have directly observed?

Rev. Swindler: You mean the composition that makes spirit real?

Barrister79: Never mind, Reverend. Just don’t bother yourself about it. 

Rape Case Cross-Examination Conducted by the Defense

From the ancient time until this present era of legal system, the questioning part has been the interesting portion of the entire scene; it is because this is the moment wherein the public could observe the flow of the mind of the defense and prosecution.

In the laws of public offenses, rape cases has been considered as a measuring ground of basic intelligence of the counsels and witnesses. This is one of the cases where all arguments and terminal of ideas would be aiming at a fixed target, id est, in rape the basic focus of the defense’s examination will be on 1.Consent provided by the mind [consensus mentis] 2.Consent provided by the mouth [consensus verbis] 3.Consent provided by the body [consensus corpus].

The cross-examiner will just be aiming at any of the consent which could disprove the existence of rape.

Theories: 1. If it is proven that the plaintiff  mentally consented, then there is no rape; 2. If it is proven that the plaintiff verbally consented, then there is no rape; 3. If it is proven that the plaintiff biologically consented, then there is no rape.

Barrister79: Are you certain that it was the penis of the accused which entered into your vagina?

Witness: Yes, sir.

Barrister79: Was the penis soft or hard?

Witness: It is hard sir.

_____________________________________________________________

It could be inferred from the answer that the witness as the “rape victim” was CONCENTRATING on the object that entered into her. Such an indicator of concentration could be the battleground for further questioning to elicit consent from the “rape victim”.