180?

Come yc tonight i would state the facts and the basis of the argument...meet at js hse at 10...in front of an audience we shall see who is right or wrong...

And you just prove me right after so long...

My statement was " Ulu Yam was near, you said it was far, you can disagree with me by saying its far but to me its near so how can you say im wrong when my perception of it is near...that is the basis of the argument, and you yourself in your post have said that you answered my question in relative context, so its okay for you to answer in relative context but when i made the statement in relative context you rejected my statement and claim your right...so tell me now who is the Fuhrer?? and dont forget i made the statement first and you rejected it second...so in conclusion just admit you disagree with my statement and tried to make your argument look right by using aaron's theory which you never realised until he said it, using the 50km mark which was'nt stated before, and finally after seeing what is wrong with your argument turn 180 and say that now you answer in relative context WHERE ELSE my statement was always and will be based on my perception of "near" and the story to which i went ulu yam plays an important part ...so now who is spinning more and more?

"Ok, I did say that Genting was “near” when you asked me the question. However, the answer I gave you, the "yes" I uttered was in a relative context. How so? When I said genting was "near" it doesn't always imply that other nearby area e.g. Ulu Yam is although they maybe physically "near" to each other. The relative "near" answer I gave was because of the nature of the location itself where Genting is "near" to me at the point of question is due to the place being a center for activity where one can be doing all whatsoever activities available legal or otherwise and the definition changes with circumstances (I was bored at that time and needed entertainment)"