QUOTE(MUM @ Jun 16 2024, 09:22 AM)
Just my thought and believes, ...no cogent evidence, so it remains as a belief
Readers have every right to view things as they want to.
(thus hksgmy has every right to view things as he wanted to, thus he has every right to comment with words like as below)...
yes, we all have this right. It is made evident by everyoneYou use terms such as "argumentative, grating, quixotic quest, tragic demonstration of self grandiosity, navel gazing".
If this is how you choose to view it, by all means, it is your choice. It is also a choice, to view it as "outscoring the stupid, rather rescuing the clueless".
I can say, "I can assure you that is not my intention" but again, it is your choice whether to accept it or not.
( hksgmy had viewed and made his choice by using those "word and terms" in his post. Thus it is also your choice whether to accept it or not what he said)
see above It is also a choice open to everyone, to view my posts as points of views that can or may be taken into consideration by whomever, be it by agents, policyholders or the general public in whatever way they see fit. If there is something wrong, please feel free to point it out.
(So I am just here to point some of it out,).
So far, I've yet to see cogent arguments pointing to falsities in my posts.
( I don't see there are any falsities in your postings, ...as you got every right to believes what you posts are the truth.
The main question is that, Does those "truth of yours" be of any use to have that wrong doer (aia vitality programme) be reprimanded or asked to change by the authorities?
thank you for pointing out that you can't see falsities in my postings. I would also like to point out that yes, it is of use. Policyholders can always use the information I've put forth to lodge complaints with the authorities, BNM and OFS and if they wished, to take AIA to court. It is up to them. You can choose to view it as ma fan, paiseh, no point etc. but you can also choose to view it otherwiseIt is how we progress, by putting across the points we have and arguing them out.
like it pointed it out earlier, no one cares. As in arguing something that is
not proven in court,
we don't have to discuss the merits of a case only after it has been brought up in court and adjudicated there. We have every right to discuss what we believe to be wrong prior to itNot proven that the author has the full signed contract of that aia vitality programme.
there was another poster who alleged that AIA vitality provided the option to withdraw consent for disclosure to third parties beyond what is necessary for provision of insurance policy benefits. I used the terms and conditions in website to prove that it was only limited to opting out of direct marketing . I don't need to have the full signed contract to make reasonable assertions. Rather this request to furnish full signed contract which shows ability to opt out of sharing data with third parties should be directed to the other poster, not menot proven to been brought up to the authorities by the author himself and the authorities are taking action against the wrong doer.
( any one can make police reports but many would just ended up as NFA)
I dont have to bring this up to the authorities myself. The purpose of my posting is to inform. It is up to the affected policyholders to take the action if they so desire it. My postings do not necessitate me going to the authorities myselfWithout cogent evidence of these, it will remains to be speculative conspiracies theories eventhough you believes you had provided with cogent evidence here.
I don't believe so. See aboveTruth is not the domain of any one person.
( truth is not domain if there is cogent evidence that aia vitality programme had violiated the requirements of the requirements imposed by the authorities).
I don't even know what this meansThis post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 16 2024, 10:30 AM