"If you work harder, you will get luckier" per Anita Sarawak dictum.

recently i have a lot of whims and caprice which i have no idea how to express them.

since we are the financially contributing 80% (approximately), but in return do we savor the equal proportion of the shares?

i paid 100% for the member fees, but what are the real benefits that i really relish from the long list of bonuses? did i really get what i paid for or my rights being deprived? and most of the time we been induce to contract the services by false statements.

"Terms and Conditions Apply", this is no longer alien to all of us. again, don't you agree if some of the terms be ousted? most of the terms are one-sided, where is our consumer right?

did you notice that recently the price of food being raised without our notice? i had a lemon juice for rm2.40 at the famous hawker center after the winding road. WTF? there is no air-conditional provided, the hygienic satisfaction is subzero, the service provider is not up to par, of course you would say that there is no one pointing a gun and command you to go there for lunch, but is the money i paid worth the value?

apparently there was a funny and interesting case which one of my fellow friend told me. there was a restaurant which highlighted that "we do not sell sky-juice". in case you don't know, sky-juice actually referring to plain water, or "air kosong" or "ice-kosong", more classy restaurant with bossy servant will named it as "city council blue jean" (*blue jean" is a kind of liquor).

CASE:
my friend actually ordered a hot drink, but since it was "hot", so he decided to ask for some ice cubes. the request been refused. according to the servant, "we don't sell sky juice", catch the cue? the logic is this, when the ice cubes melt, then it become water, for their understanding, water = sky juice. so if they provide ice cubes, then directly they serve sky juice to customer. interesting?

someone please cast my doubts and dubiety.

1. our grandparents used to calling it "sky juice", because last time there was not much (or none) of pollution, so they will drink the well water directly without "cook" or boil the water, water come from rain, and rain come from sky, so basically they are suggesting that water = sky juice. anon, that is why it was known as "city council blue jean" as well, due to city council provide the water through the tab, right? to make a humor, they equal the water to blue jean.

today, sky juice should be replaced by "city council blue jean", since we evolving to be more civilize. we no longer drinking rain water, but we treat the water through the water treatment system before it was supplied to our house. so the term should be OUSTED.

2. if the ice cubes after melting is equal to sky juice, then it is not true in the chemistry sense. from ice to water, the chemical structure of H2O actually undergone a few phases changes, namely from hexagonal to cubical to rhombohedral to tetragonal, (i might be mistaken), but if the saying were correct, then why not some restaurant serve the excrement as well? after all feces still come from the same source what!

3. when we mention "sell", in layman English that means we try to offer something to someone (or someTHING) in order to get money in return. even in battler system, we still exchanging one item with another item, to simplify it, meaning we are getting something after we trade for another thing. over here, it is obvious that customer will use the "money" to "pay" the food if it is "sold".

case (i): IF the servant provide the ice cube, and the ice cube melt eventually, and mix with the hot drink that ordered by my friend, and later the bill only charged for the "hot drink" without extra charges for the ice-cube, so basically this cannot amount to "sell", because there was not monetary issue involving here, since there is not, "SELL" is not the case here. prima facie there is no case of "sell", sine qua non, why want to invoke the provocation?

case (ii): IF later the bill with extra charges with the ice-cube provided, then again, isn't this is against the restaurant own principle which stated "we do not sell sky juice"? once you charge for it, customer have to pay for it, back to the root or fundamental of the definition of "sell". if "charge" can not equivalent to "sell", then what kind of rules are we suggesting here? so far we only apply literal rule, golden rule and mischief rule. restaurant is running in the business sense, definitely is sell and purchase.

you are not "sell" but you "charge", is that makes any different for customer / consumer? in the end of the day, customer still have to make payment in terms of money. so why is the restaurant applying such a contradictory provision to itself as if it will make himself in lose-lose situation?

to recap, for the ice cube = sky juice,
(i) if i pay, then are you against your own stipulation because you "sell"?
(ii) if i don't pay, then you are not "sell", so since it is your principle not to "sell" sky juice, then why you want to provide ice cube in the first place?
(iii) if you not "sell" sky juice, forgive my dubious, but how you cook your dishes? where is the liquid come from then? isn't that is still sky juice?

i am getting older and slower in catching the ball, so can anyone please enlighten me?

i am begging for answer(s), or argument(s).