And if you’re going to tell me off for saying I don’t care and yet still be here at the same time. Then you don’t seem to know why I’m posting here instead of creating my own blog, voicing out my thoughts and creating petitions and all. To you, it seems that mere comments can agitate you to scorn and rebuke at people of a different mindset.

Also…just to make it clear…again. Look…I DON’T care if you find me credible or not, you have no reason to agree with me. When I said “We never said…..nor did we say we wanted only credible sources.” I was just trying to emphasize the fact I will believe whatever I want to, even if it’s not credible to others.

And finally….I don’t, and really don’t, want to engage in a heated debate with you over something I deem meaningless. I’m lazy, and don’t feel like thinking up response to every comment you make. But still, I thank you for your time, and I assure you, seriously, I assure you, I don’t make sense not only to you, and I’m probably missing an Irony center in my brain. So feel free to ignore me when you want to. It could be better for all of us.

Thanks for the warm welcome, and no worries I do not expect my comments at Ms Dotty’s site to be published.

Regards to Darkness and the rest of the boys too. Keep up the sterling good work!

(1) “I do believe sometimes the reaction of netizens do very little to endear our govt. They dont inspire much confidence.”

You need to more specific. I cant comment on this statement without prejudicing the case of either netizens and govt.

(2) “violence begets violence. But if what you say is true then we shall never be able to find common ground.”

You can look at this in many ways; but I prefer to see it as just another way of continuing politics. Just bc there is NO common ground doesnt mean progress cannot be made; it can, but a different set of rules need to be in place thats all – could be detente; or you stay here and I stay there; but I think, at the inner core of this proposition there is a need to leverage on the idea of balance of power, if it is to work.

For example, one thing good abt wayangparty is it counters TOC and vice-versa. They made not always see eye to eye on certain points of principles. There may not even be any common ground. But no one denies even if we take this simple model of conflict; its still able to produce a reliable good for most readers.

Now contrast this with a single track hegemony; where instead of a bipolar blog world; you have something that is basically the evil power of only one; be in the form of a single blog of wayang or toc – then how might that be able to produce good, despite the presence of common ground?

Something to think abt

Thanks

SD

Hi “randomnessinmind”, hard to make sense out of what you were trying to say in your post. You said you wanted to “judge [based] on [your] own [judgment of] what [you] had seen or heard [as true and credible/reliable]“; and in the same breath, you said you “did [not] want only credible sources” of information to base your judgment, which you want others to believe is credible anyway.

But if you DO NOT “want ONLY credible sources” of information, then how can you come to a “credible” judgment that we all can agree with you as correct or credible? Take this analogy: If there is no light in a big room (perfect darkness), how then can you expect any person to walk through it without stumbling over objects in it, or bumping badly into its walls? Even a blind man must have a “credible” cane to feel and probe his way around. He can’t be walking around without any “credible” aid! Maybe you would love to show us how you can do it!

If I had not gone in to help that poor old cabby Koo in August 2006, then of course what all of you people said would make good sense and be acceptable. But since I was involved (I wish there were more people who had written to help too), then I automatically became a qualified arbiter of the whole matter of what was credible or not; truth or falsity; sound or spurious.

And if you said you “don’t care either way…as it was not such a big deal anyways”, then why do you bother to write your post here to advocate to us as correct your “credible” judgment that RADM Lui was wrong—because he “was insensitive” (for speaking from facts), which made you “laughing very hard” at his silliness since “he was dealing himself a blow”?

And you have also preferred to shy away from my question: Why do you think you have your constitutional right to speak your mind off, but RADM Lui should always remain as quiet as a mouse out of a reverential fear of upsetting stern netizens like you?

As for SD, liaison officer of the Brotherhood, it is pointless for one to engage in a debate with you based on just your imagination and the things you had heard wrongly or were wrong; not on facts and truths that I know of (since I had involved myself in the matter). And yet you posted that you objected to people “confecting endless lies” when all that you wanted us to believe as truths are nothing but your imagination, speculations and your incoherence.

Do not forget that the second tragic incident was perpetrated by another old man who had been going up to MP Seng a few times before to complain about evil spirits haunting his house and disturbing him. If only MP Seng had known that he had also to function as an exorcist, maybe he could come in more prepared by taking a course in exorcism to confront Lucifer and his agents.

Even then, not all cases of mental disturbances are due to activities of evil spirits; many are manifestations of serious mental illness or degradation. That was why Cockroach Ong had a history of being warded in IMH and of seeking in-and-out treatments by the psychiatrists there.

If you want us to believe that Cockroach Ong was “[not] mentally unsound”, you may want to post evidence of your professional qualification in psychiatry to convince us that you were right. Then again, how could we trust your telepathic/remote diagnosis to be correct, and IMH psychiatrists’ many clinical findings from close quarters were wrong?
-

{”randomnessinmind” wrote on Thu, 5th Mar 2009 11:53 am: …. We’re just saying we judge on our own what we’ve seen or heard. We never said…..nor did we say we wanted only credible sources. [WHHAAAT?]
It’s only natural to assume by netizens that what RADM Lui said was insensitive….I….felt it was a big joke when he [said that]…He referred to the internet…..to moderate themselves,….I….was really laughing very hard when that happened, since he was dealing himself a blow from the netizens, and seriously speaking he could’ve phrased it better…..he enraged the polite ones…people like me(and shoestring)…..If what you said was true, it was just an honest mistake, but nobody cares anymore for worst things had happened, …..I don’t care either ways…..It’s not such a big deal anyways….}
-
{”Singaporedaddy” wrote on Thu, 5th Mar 2009 2:39 pm: …..The problem with assigning the appelation of credibility is it may NOT be such a credible process after all. …As one of the tools that is frequently used by those who have a bent to impose their will at every turn and cost is by undermining the credibility of their opponents by every possible means and this includes confecting endless lies to simply marginalizing them by labelling them as the lunatic fringe….[by] declaring him mentally unsound to perhaps casting doubt on his capabilities….
If everyone engaged in fair and square debate according the rules of the level playing field then Ah Tham would be spot on; but as it is, I’ve go with shoestring on this one ONLY bc some people employ gutter tactics and that simply deserves equal treatment of sorts….SD (Internet liaison officer of the brotherhood) }

I am not a PAP stooge, but I do believe sometimes the reaction of netizens do very little to endear our govt. They dont inspire much confidence. As for you SD, I agree with you some what, when you say violence begets violence. But if what you say is true then we shall never be able to find common ground.

There has to be some give and take.

Hi shoestring”, you are again barking up the wrong tree. RADM Lui got the facts from me long before MP Seng was assaulted the second time. And I want you to get the facts right from me too. Then we can have credible and meaningful debates.

You can’t be writing nonsense and debating incoherently, without wanting to know what you are writing and advocating about, and expect people in the audience to accept your inanities, do you? Didn’t you say we must be thinking more, “instead of [just using our] lazy brains …to be fed” with falsities or misinformation that you are trying so hard to feed on yourself? How ironic you are! sir! Swill you have been feeding on vis-a-vis the Seng HT saga, if I may say so! Definitely, such swills cannot be from your “heavenly places”.

Anyway, nowhere was RADM Lui insisting on his own rule of engagement in debates. What he wanted was that good and intelligent people like you and me should debate on facts and truths (such as what I had long given to him). So please stop changing your position when you are found to be talking and arguing so incoherently. Isn’t it stupid that I should agree with what you want us to avoid doing in your “credible” debate—avoid using our “lazy brains”—and you do not have any faith in what you are advocating us to avoid doing. How can you be so upside down, sir?

Blame me, if you want, for feeding RADM Lui with the facts and truths in the Seng HT’s saga, long before the second tragedy happened, and for my kindness in wanting to help that poor cabby Koo out of trouble in the first instance; not on RADM Lui, will you, sir?

Lastly, I agree with you, it “is a waste of time” trying to argue/debate with those who love not the facts or truths, Mr “shoestring”!

{”shoestring” wrote on Thu, 5th Mar 2009 1:08 pm: Oh Tham Eng,

I am honored that you took the time to pen such a long post in response to my one paragraph…..“What is wrong in people like RADM Lui Tuck Yew wanting or “insist[ing] that online discourse should be credible?”…. a debater’s credibility is up to the audience to decide.

His role is to convince, not insist that the debate be conducted according to his rules…..[not] declare himself credible….I do not care what he thinks is credible or who he chooses. I will judge for myself and decide who is credible and who is a waste of time. And debates/discourse where one party engages only those he thinks are credible are a waste of time to me.}

Yes. I think shoestring has spoken wisely on the topic of the rules of engagement. The problem with assigning the appelation of credibility is it may NOT be such a credible process after all.

As one of the tools that is frequently used by those who have a bent to impose their will at every turn and cost is by undermining the credibility of their opponents by every possible means and this includes confecting endless lies to simply marginalizing them by labelling them as the lunatic fringe.

This ranges from the direct to oblique i.e declaring him mentally unsound to perhaps casting doubt on his capabilities by revealing strategic information of a type that undermines his character.

If everyone engaged in fair and square debate according the rules of the level playing field then Ah Tham would be spot on; but as it is, I’ve go with shoestring on this one ONLY bc some people employ gutter tactics and that simply deserves equal treatment of sorts.

Its a rule of thumb; never bring a knife to a gun fight.

Well said Shoestring. Btw nice to see you here again. Sorry about your comments in dotseng. Darkness sends his warmest reg. Couldnt post them up, as we are currently experiencing technical problems with the comment box.

SD (Internet liaison officer of the brotherhood)

I am honored that you took the time to pen such a long post in response to my one paragraph. What I wrote is a generic reply to your question:

“What is wrong in people like RADM Lui Tuck Yew wanting or “insist[ing] that online discourse should be credible?”

It is metaphor to illustrate that he, and people like him, is in the same position as the netizens he spoke about – as someone trying to convince an audience of his case, just like a debater whose credibility is up to the audience to decide.

His role is to convince, not insist that the debate be conducted according to his rules. He cannot declare himself credible (he may or may not be) and choose his opponents according to his criteria.

I do not care what he thinks is credible or who he chooses. I will judge for myself and decide who is credible and who is a waste of time. And debates/discourse where one party engages only those he thinks are credible are a waste of time to me.

Please let your Brotherhood writers know that I meant no ill-will towards any of them in my previous post, though I was also trying to pun on the moniker of one of them, “Darkness” even as I was trying to share my thoughts. That is what we would call meaningful debates, where all of us will turn out to be winners, right, admin?

Let us also never forget to always remain on our learning curve. Then if anything happens to any of us, we can all rally to help out. SINGAPOERANS MUST ALWAYS HELP OUT SINGAPOREANS!

Lastly, the correction for my post on 4th Mar 2009 10:17 pm I put up in response to “shoestring’s”.

Should be “…what I wrote on 2/3/09 at 2:25 PM in my post “TIME TO DISPEL DARKNESS!”, not “….what I wrote on 2/3/09 at 2:25 PM in my post “WAH LAU, I HAVE TO EXPLAIN ALL OVER AGAIN!”

We’re just saying we judge on our own what we’ve seen or heard. We never said we don’t believe you, nor did we say we wanted only credible sources.

It’s only natural to assume by netizens that what RADM Lui said was insensitive. Because I myself also felt it was a big joke when he made that statement. He referred to the internet then as a whole to moderate themselves, and obviously, by doing that…many figured he’d wanted people watching over the internet. I, seriously, was really laughing very hard when that happened, since he was dealing himself a blow from the netizens, and seriously speaking he could’ve phrased it better.

By only focusing on the bad part of the online community he enraged the polite ones, probably people like me(and shoestring). It was made into a big joke in many places, including here. If what you said was true, it was just an honest mistake, but nobody cares anymore for worst things had happened, and attentions diverted.

Bringing it up again may make a few believe you, I do, for one, only because I don’t care either ways. But I see no point in raising your voice, or CAPS over it.

Well, don’t take my comment too seriously now, I’m not trying to prove you wrong, but just telling you that we probably don’t care. It’s not such a big deal anyways.