Author: Grievous

William Hung is NOT dead

6 comments

I am so amused when I see two posts on the ping.sg top 10 saying that William Hung has died. But apparently, that is ‘old news’. The word for it is a hoax according to this. And it is a hoax (or ‘broken news’) that is almost 3 years old. Just where did these people dig up this old fossil? Frankly, would you not have seen it on CNN or even our evening Chinese tabloids by now if such a thing is even true?

I have posted the link from Snopes to both blogs and obviously one of the bloggers who posted this misinformation considered my comment – William Hung is about as dead as George W. Bush – too offensive to pass his moderation standards or he is doing some verification on his own.

Is it a wonder why most people does not consider blogs a worthy source of news and information on the Internet? The reason is obvious when people simply just try to get more attention and visitors to their blogs by posting things that would scream * click me * (which looked like ‘dick me’), but none of them has spent even the minimum effort to do some verification to confirm the truthfulness of the information they are posting! However, I would applaud those who have the common courtesy and responsibility to allow the counter-information to be published so their readers can make an informed decision on what they are reading.

For goodness sake (and I will say this again and again like a broken record), there are enough written material on the Internet to verify if such things are true when you care to look (or when you looked hard enough). Please, verify what you post and don’t spread misinformation!!

And if you are posting something in jest, leave a disclaimer or something so your readers are aware before they get infected by a variant of the ‘forward this to all your friends’ email virus which compels them to send it to everyone on their contact list. After all, a lot of other people also never bother to verify what they pass on to the next reader, who is none the wiser about the truthfulness and authenticity of the information given to them.

I don’t know about the rest of you. But I do not want to misinform my friends or those who trust me, much less complete strangers on the net who chanced upon my blog!

Pulau Ubin Trip

3 comments

Went with my church friends to Pulau Ubin today. It rained pretty heavily for about 30 minutes or so before the weather clears up. But that was good because it kept the entire morning cool as we broke up in groups to go around exploring the island on our own.

It is sad I have never been to Ubin for all my life until now. There are some quiet places away from the noisy and packed city which I liked, and it is a good escape from the city, though one of my church friends mentioned that today is a little quiet maybe because of the early morning rain causing some people to put off their plans to visit.

Here are some photos I took with my beloved FZ8…. and of course, modified with Picasa. 😛


NMP Siew Kum Hong

One comment

I have said I will not write anymore about 377A, but unfortunately, it seems I do not have the luxury. I was just confronted by Priss over my support of 377A.

Priss was reasonably upset that I had stood for it, and she showed me what the comments some of the other supporters had written. I won’t repeat those bigoted and homophobic comments since I do not stand for any of those arguments myself. I was reasonably appalled and I am quite sure quite a number of those who signed for it would be reasonably upset as well if they had gone through them.

I was further confronted by the fact that some has attacked Mr Siew Kum Hong and called for his removal or resignation.

I do not know Mr Siew personally, but it was many years ago that we had exchanged views on soc.culture.singapore. Then a university undergrad at NUS, Mr Siew gives me the impression as a reasonable, calm, and knowledgeable person. I enjoyed writing in response to Mr Siew, and to read his well thought of comments.

While I don’t have a single clue why Mr Siew stood for repealing 377A, from my old impression of him, I believed he has looked at all the angles and decided that this is a good cause he should champion in his capacity as a NMP. (I would prefer he does things out of his own motivation than just sing endless praises of the Tali-PAP, or play devils advocate or act as a fake opposition. It was certainly better than people talking about people who eats and plays loud music on MRT, for starters.)

If I meet Mr Siew in person, I would give him a pat on the back even though I disagree with what he is championing. Not for the reason I had a good impression of the man, but for what he put at stake for his cause. I wondered if he had seen the reaction coming at him for doing this, would he persevere?

The sacrifice he is making I can definitely respect, though I cannot say the same for the endless chatters of a lot of pro-repeal bloggers whom in my opinion has got zilch to lose for championing for the repeal. (In other words, no matter how articulate you are or how well you are presenting your points, you are just a trend follower because it is my opinion you have nothing to lose to just follow it. You have made no sacrifices and have no clue what you will pay to champion the cause.)

So I say, to those who are almost literally crying for Mr Siew’s blood, leave Mr Siew alone. The call for his resignation or removal is completely uncalled for. Is that the only way we know how to deal with those who champions an opposing cause – to completely tear him down and destroy him regardless of what kind of person he may truly be? Is this the kind of politics you want for this country?

Your reaction can set an example of the kind of political participation you want, Singapore. Can’t we calmly just listen to what other people have to say, and politely disagree, no matter how we loathe what they are saying?

The choice is yours, Singapore.

Seat Hoggers on Bus 174

13 comments

Took this photo on bus 174 around 2:30pm today on my way back after lunch in Bukit Timah with xinyun. I didn’t originally noticed what they had done until I stop pounding on my Blackberry and looking at messages on Twitter.

To be fair, while there were a number of standing passengers, the bus wasn’t really packed. Above which seats were getting available every few stops. But beyond the right edge of this picture, nearer to the door, a little girl in school uniform was sitting on the place where one of the validators were mounted. So I am just wondering if they didn’t do this, that girl might get a proper seat.

I should have adjusted my position a little so I could have the girl in the shot. She and her elder sister alighted several stops before these two in the picture did the same.

Keep377a.com (IV)

2 comments

This is getting tiresome.

lbandit wrote a blog post in rebuttal to some of my earlier postings so I’ll address some of it. (This will be my final post on this subject since I have already stopped wasting my time commenting in any blogs with this topic anyway and there’s no point for me to rave on and on like a broken record. After all, several of my friends told me, you can’t have everyone be aware of what you are aware of.)

I just need to point out several things (I’ll make it quick since I would really prefer to be able to arrive for on time for lunch with a friend):

  1. “The idea that religious beliefs should be privileged and exempted from criticisms is fallacious.”

    I never said “religious beliefs should be privileged and exempted from criticisms”. If you have problem with my stand, fine, you are free to object. But who are you to attack the basis I come to my conclusion? It is almost as good as, if you surname is WTF, and I said “All you WTF loonies are incapable of reason.”

    Perhaps you would stand for that.

  2. Bereft of any religious beliefs, why should homosexuals be denied the right of marriage?”

    Because even when bereft of any religious beliefs, one needs no further prompting to understand that the duty of population replacement is on heterosexuals. And Singapore already have a low population growth itself. Would that be a good reason enough to justify the argument that such a lifestyle is not against the well being of this country, and by extension same sex marriages and adoption as well? The babies are not going to fall out of the sky from a bird.

    Go ahead and argue for all these “freedoms” but I would prefer you also take up the responsibility of procreation and also, with the decline of population, the tax burden which everyone else would have to take up as well.

    Call me selfish, but before that, please make yourself the most selfless person on this planet.

  3. “You might not have explicitly said that homosexuals are bad eggs or perverts, but you’ve most certainly made the association (and by inference, made the suggestion) in that one paragraph.”

    Blast! Damned if I do. Damned if I don’t.

    I can’t really imagine if I didn’t say that, would it have been better. The next time I’ll just not make any disclaimers and let you jokers assail me before I make them. It might just save me the trouble of doing so anyway. After all, it doesn’t seem to matter that I already said so and I am still accused of it.

    But suddenly, Sigmund Freud’s ‘Moral Projection’ theory, comes to mind. I wonder, whether the people who never believe disclaimers do so because they never meant what they say on their disclaimers?

  4. “If you believe that 377A should be kept in place to curb prostitution, then by the same line of argument, you should propose for the criminalization of all heterosexual sex to help curb prostitution.”.

    I hear this preposterous argument (and variations of it) so often I can only shake my head and laugh. After all, I didn’t say 377A should be kept in place to curb prostitution. I am simply saying 377A should be kept to prevent the introduction of new forms of prostitution. Maybe I should write this in Chinese:

    刑事法第377A章因该留下来防止新类型的卖淫出现，但它本身并不是用来对付卖淫活动。

    If you don’t understand Chinese, sorry lah.

  5. “The same laws that allow the court to charge heterosexual sex in public will allow the court to charge homosexual sex in public. There is no need to keep 377A which criminalize consenting homosexual sex in private.”

    I have no doubt there are laws charging heterosexuals for gross indecency in public. Will you be so kind to show to us those sections which will ensure that, so I can be assured no loophole in the wording will allow some people to get away with it? Thank you.

Yaaaay!! I am done. Now let me go and do my 10 minutes shit + shower so I’ll be in time for the lunch!

1 … 111 112 113 114 115 … 186