Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of... MALAYSIA?

The most creative comedy in recent years, one of the best ever (well, according to me at least...).

Borat is a Cambridge-educated prankster. The dumbest thing any person could do - let alone a whole country - is to underestimate him by taking him seriously, again and again (until you finally see the joke and respond with some humour) -- because his jokes are funny if and only if people take him seriously.

In other words, the joke is not really on Kazakhstan, and it's actually not him who is hilarious or talking like an idiot, but those who responded seriously -- on and off the screen. Those who got angry at his jokes are only providing an 'extension' or 'continuation' to his jokes, becoming part of the entertainment -- because their responses have indirectly exposed just how 'slow' they were (in not getting the joke), and how they ended up -- often inadvertently -- helping to complete it.

But one thing the Glorious Nation of Malaysia should ponder over is the room given to the freedom of expression for sophisticated, creative talents (not just in the arts). I would LOVE to see an American or British -style political/social satire show on our national TVs someday. (I hope that will happen during my lifetime...)

So, Malaysia -- are we mature enough to handle this? Do we have a sophisticated enough sense of humour to appreciate (let alone to produce) such brilliant artists?? If it was Malaysia which was 'picked on' instead of Kazakhstan, what would we have said or done??!! (Demonstrations in front of the British High Commission?)

Some food for thought:

"As the Internet invades more aspects of everyday life, its addressing system is not just a matter of free expression, but also a matter of freedom of assembly and ultimately, freedom of thought. That is why the deletion of one comedian's Web site and other small skirmishes in cyberspace are as troubling as they are funny."


p.s. Go and see it if the movie comes to Malaysian movie theatres. I hope you'll love it -- if you are broad minded enough to 'get it'. [Warning: Not suitable for people with heart or mind problems (either too weak or too 'narrow') or who take life a little too seriously.]

Maths Genius

there's been too many depressing news lately.

so, hope to lighten up a bit... :)

Free Speech - Are Malaysians Ready? (About this Blog)

"Because if the First Amendment [under the United States Constitution, safeguarding the freedom of speech, etc] will protect... A scumbag like me... then it'll protect all of you. 'Cause I'm the worst."

- Woody Harrelson as Larry Flynt, in The People vs Larry Flynt (1996).

[Larry Flynt was the publisher of Hustler Magazine, an obscenely and offensively lewd (by almost-universal standard, definitely by Malaysian (all races) standard), pornographic publication.]

Judging from the behaviours of our bloggers and commentators (including myself!), I don't think we are mature enough yet... Are we?



ABOUT THIS BLOG


FREQUENCY: I'll only post something when I feel that other bloggers have not raised it, or their space does not allow me to express my extended views (due to their censorship or space constraint).

I don't have time to blog on a 'regular basis', but I quite often post comments on other blogs.


COMPLICATIONS: When I feel that certain events have been over-simplified by others, I'll try to add my own perceptions and to show, to the best of my limited ability, that certain matters might not be as simple as they seem. You are welcome to add yours.


'HISTORY': I was driven away/suppressed/censored by Jeff Ooi (when I complained about Jeff's absurd censoring of perceived 'obscene' and 'defamatory' comments in August 2006) and Rocky's Bru (when I held a different view about the correct application of the concept of Plagiarism and accused him of hypocricy in criticising others of censorship).


MOTIVATIONS: I've obviously irked Jeff and Rocky with my fierce criticisms, which must be rude and obnoxious to them. They couldn't take it, so they censored me (justifiably to them, but not so according to me). I don't believe in censorship, not even of what you believe to be obscene or obnoxious or loud or simply irrelevant.

I think I'm NOT - and also NOBODY (except God) is - qualified or authorised, morally, to impose their standard of what's acceptable and what's not on any other person. Because more often than not, when we try to impose our standard, we are influenced by our SUBJECTIVE preferences AND shortcomings.

I might consider myself smart (well, 'smart' enough to spill ink here, I guess?) but I believe there are many, many out there who are smarter and wiser than I am. (Besides, whether we should use 'smart' and 'wise' as a pre-requisite of enjoying the right to free speech is debatable in itself, because it's elitist.)

Even what I believe to be 'unworthy' views today might not be so, after my wisdom has (hopefully) grown the next day. In other words, perhaps a view might be 'unworthy' to me now only because I'm not wise enough to appreciate its wisdom today? Besides, because this is intended to be a PUBLIC conversation, it's up to the readers and commentators to JUDGE what view is valid, and what is not.

Above all, I'm only asking questions here - those others might not have asked.

And if anyone is offended - I'm sorry, truth often hurts. And please don't come here if you don't want to get 'hurt'.

So, I'm a LIBERTARIAN when it comes to free speech, and that's how I try to 'maintain' this blog - by doing nothing about the comments. Therefore, it would be very MESSY (if the traffic is heavy), with lots of junk/spam perhaps? Some have tried to use the excuse of 'need to maintain 'standard' in my blog' to censor dissent. But that's the price of free speech, if you ask me.


CONVERSATIONS: Bloggers often take the firm attitude of "I'm right, my enemy is wrong" - often because they have an agenda to advance. This attitude defeats the whole purpose of conversations which, to me, is to educate, persuade and influence each other.

What if we are all right in our own ways? What if we are all wrong to a certain extent? I hope we are all open to that possibility, given our finite mind and uneven maturity.

What is sad is to see blogs like:

a) Rocky's Bru, where all the pages sounded like a parrot-sex orgy is going on - because all you hear is "yes, yes, yes... oh YES!! YES!!! YESSSS!!!!"
All dissents are blocked off in the name of 'avoid diversion' or 'to maintain blog standard';

and

b) Screehshots, where the pages all sounded like a scratched CD, because you see [DELETED] ..... [DELETED].... all over the place.

The sad way they 'moderate' the comments only exposes how petty and biased they are (while they still pretend to be able to tolerate dissent). To me, that is not how an open and frank debate should be, nor how free speech should be enjoyed.

Yes, they (as they like to boast) blog with their real identity, they are the so-called 'gentleman bloggers'. However, we all know the reasons why we don't blog with open identity in this country. At the very least, to blog with open identity might reduce the effectiveness of some bloggers/commentators.

But I firmly believe that the validity or forcefulness of a person's speech should not, and does not, depend on the person's identity or lack thereof (unless the identity is somehow relevant to the issue, such as one's double standard).

Indeed, to attack the identity of (or lack thereof) the messenger (often done when one runs out of ideas...) instead of focusing on the message only shows one's desperation. It's rather pathetic, actually.


GUARANTEE: NO CENSORSHIP, not even of spam and junk. Because God never gave me that authority to pronounce what is or is not worthy, valid or wise. (Well, I guess except when you post something that threatens national or world security, like posting the formula for making nuclear bombs?? That would be naughty...)

The only agenda I have here is free speech. Welcome.

Creative Copying, or in Defense of Mimicry

The NST reported today that its group editor Brendan Pereira had resigned. According to some, it is because of a plagiarised article written by Mr Pereira.

While I do not weep for, nor rejoice in, Mr Pereira's resignation, (and I actually got into a debate with Rocky's Bru's owner and his commentators because of bigger issues of Dr Mahathir and journalistic bias, rather than to defend this Brendan Pereira chap who is a spin-doctor, people I don't like;) I am concerned about the application of this 'plagiarism' concept.

If applied too broadly, it would suffocate the creativity of writers - one manifestation of which is to creatively mimic or imitate the style and spirit of another's writing, perhaps because the imitator wishes to borrow the same frame of mind/ethos generated by the imitated writing. That might not be very 'original', but it's a way to be creative, nonetheless.

Besides, if we were to give credit too all literary styles we have borrowed, then our writings would be so heavily annotated as to be not feasible to write in the end. After all, which living writer is not influenced by past literary masters?

To me, Mitch Albom's article about how the world changed since 9/11 conveys a particular 'state of mind' or 'mood'. Maybe, Mr Pereira wanted to borrow that 'state of mind' or 'mood' when he wrote about Dr M's attack on Abdullah, that's why Albom's literary style and expressions were borrowed. (Whether the 'borrowing' was successful in conjuring the same 'mood' or not is a different question.)

Rocky Bru's evaluation was, "Some say imitation is the greatest form of flattery. I call this plagiarism."

He did not offer SPECIFICS as to why is plagiarism, and how to differentiate between plagiarism (especially when it is applied in the context of creative writings, not academic research) and imitation (acceptable).

That's what worries me.

While I'm not knowledgeable enough to explain or enumerate what constitutes unacceptable plagiarism and acceptable imitation/mimicry, I just hope we remember that there is a difference between the 2 concepts - which neither Rocky's Bru nor Screenshots (who began the charge) bothered to explain.

Like the concept of 'sedition' under Malaysian laws, I personally felt that this concept of plagiarism has been applied quite bluntly in this case by Mr Pereira's personal foe, ie. turned into an offensive weapon, rather than purely out of respect for journalistic integrity.

I just hope we bear in mind that there is a need for a careful distinction between the 2 concepts, and for a more sophisticated appreciation of literary styles and creative writing. The following is one perspective.

----------------------------------------

NWP Publications
The Quarterly Fall 2002
Creative Copying, or in Defense of Mimicry
By Rebecca Dierking
http://www.writingproject.org/cs/nwpp/print/nwpr/448

"...First, the difference between mimicry and plagiarism is intent. The student who takes information from a source and says, “Hey, this is my stuff. I am sole possessor of this knowledge” is plagiarizing. He has stolen the work of another—usually research, facts and figures—and has published that information as his own.

Mimicking, on the other hand, is deliberate as well, but the intent is not to say, “Hey, this is my own work” but rather to say, “Hey, Williams is an awesome poet, so I’m going to try to write like him in a few poems and eventually maybe some of it will rub off on me and be a natural element of my writing style.”

...And even professional writers subconsciously (or consciously) are guided by the writing of other professionals they admire... Writers reflect (insert “mimic”) their reading material.

So why is mimicry okay? It’s acceptable because the writer is integrating into his own writing elements of the style of another writer that he admires. His goal is to make his writing better. He would not mimic a bad writer; he mimics those writers who are making an impact on him personally or who are achieving a style he finds worthy.

Mimicking, unlike plagiarizing, is an approach by which the author tries to better himself, to become more skilled. Just as a student musician is influenced by the playing or composing style of those he admires, a student writer is also influenced by other writers.

..I think it is important that these young writers understand that writers have always drawn on the work of other writers. Shakespeare himself stole plots from mythology, history, and even his contemporaries. No one seems offended by these borrowings. Rather, we are awed by his ability to transform the mundane into the sublime.

...but in creative writing there are somewhat different rules. You can’t take someone else’s words and use them as your own; that’ll still get you in trouble. However, if you use their idea or technique to improve your own, it’s okay.”

--------------------------------------------

Plagiarism - What does it mean?

Here are my comments and those responding to me on Rocky's Post (before being censored) called THE LETTER THE PLAGIARIST WON'T PRINT

-------------------------------------------------

Half Blind said...

I agree with the NST response. She needs to specify which part of the NST article was 'prejudiced and biased'. I personally didn't see any.All those who are defending Mahathir cannot deny that Mahathir was the closest thing Malaysia had to a dictator, and his regime was the most corrupt. People are welcome to accuse Abdullah's administration as being incompetent and dull etc (which I agree), but please also don't forget that Mahathir deserves to be the first to go to hell.
10:59 AM


Half Blind said...

Rocky,
Judging from your relentless, continuous attack on the NST clowns over the months (some makes a lot of sense but mostly just trivial and petty), I can only conclude that you have something personal against the NST clowns.While I think it's fine to attack those clowns, please detach yourself and be aware that you might have crossed the line to the boundary of getting too personal, too biased, to the absurd extent of 'any enemy of my enemy is my friend'.Go after NST if that's your ultimate personal agenda but don't inadvertently do the Devil's (Mahathir's) bidding. That's very sad.
11:07 AM


2020vision said...
sorry half-blind..
i dont agree with the NST response. Brendan's piece was prejudiced and biased. as plain as that.for 22 years, malaysia was ruled by a dictator! some dictator he was... people whacking him left right and center. the press whacked him too. did you know that? of course, there are some things he did that cannot be defended. and those things cannot be repeated. but he didnt have his son-in-law calling CEOs and MBs up to tell them what to do. like some commentors said -- if there were things that were wrong (under Dr M), they are still wrong now.corrupt government then? same government now.
11:16 AM


bacardi said...

this is what i like about your blog, bro.you let comments whacking you through. some say you are not balanced, that you have lost it. that's his/her view.you exposing brendan's copycat/plagiarised work in your blog makes you "not balanced", not professional. ok. whatever.see, they know you. but you do not know them. so they can say whatever they like about you and you have no idea in hell who they are.and you attacking the NST clowns? they're clowns ruining NST. why shouldnt you attack them! Sheeezzz.are you being too personal? maybe, huh? maybe not. but that is for you to answer.
11:41 AM

Anonymous said...
Hey Half Blind,You must be really half blind!
11:46 AM


Anonymous said... [Juslo's note: Also me]

The Man Who Sold The World,

"you have proven you're still a balanced journalist, one who carries both sides of the story and let us decide who to chose or believe."
How is the very suggestive title of this Post (which shows grave disapproval towards ""THE PLAGIARIST") 'balanced'??

And you went on to say, "This is how journalism is suppose to be."
ARE YOU SURE??? Do you mind telling me what kind of 'journalism' school you went to?
Rocky, I think you've lost it, no longer 'balanced', if you ask me.
11:11 AM


Half Blind said...
2020vision,

"people whacking him left right and center. the press whacked him too. did you know that?"
Sorry, you mean, the MALAYSIAN press? DURING those 22 years?Ever heard of Ops Lalang, etc? Maybe you just came back from Mars recently. Welcome back.

"of course, there are some things he did that cannot be defended. and those things cannot be repeated."
I think you just admitted that the 'Datin' was wrong to criticise the NST, and that the NST was right in their article.

"but he didnt have his son-in-law calling CEOs and MBs up to tell them what to do."
Yeah, that's WRONG and CORRUPT, but our Emperor Mahathir did MUCH WORSE AND MORE CRUEL things than that - not only he TOLD people what to do, but after telling them, if they REFUSE to obey, he would SACK them by INVENTING FALSE accusations (Salleh Abas, Anwar Ibrahim, to name but a few) and turn Malaysia into the rule of ONE man.

"corrupt government then? same government now."
Sure, but the difference between Abdullah (so far) and Mahathir is not just a difference of degree, it's a TOTAL difference in KIND/CATEGORY. If you can't see that, I suggest you get your moral compass fixed.
11:47 AM


Anonymous said...
half blind,
who could blame you for your opinion... by being half-sighted will of course blur your vision.Go get a white cane and find your way to heaven.
11:56 AM


Ingin tahu said...
Anonymous (11:11 AM) said...How is the very suggestive title of this Post (which shows grave disapproval towards ""THE PLAGIARIST") 'balanced'??And you went on to say, "This is how journalism is suppose to be." ARE YOU SURE??? Do you mind telling me what kind of 'journalism' school you went to?===================================

Hey Anonymous (11:11 AM),

Maybe you should get a copy of "The YOU in Journalism" a handbook for journalist written by former NST Editor-in-chief P.C. Shivadas & Ex NST journalist Krishnamoorthy.
Jeff ooi from: http://www.jeffooi.com said
there is an appendix on Ethics of Journalism on Page 163, with the lone-soul title: DON'T. Among other things, it says DONT:
• Lie in print or on the air.
• Suppress or omit opinion with which one disagrees.
• Show favouritism or personal bias in one's reporting or writing.
• Plagiarise someone else's words or ideas (journalists can use the words with attribution.)
• Use one's position for personal gain. (e.g. accepting gifts from sourses etc.)
• Do anything that may be construed as a "conflict of interest" (i.e. write politicalspeeches for the candidate they are covering in an election etc.)

I think bro rocky has been taught all that and has put them into practice.Cant say much abt Kalimullah or Brenden.Cheers!
12:11 PM


Anonymous said...
Half blind,
I was better off with Dr Mahathir as a dictator, if he was! I'm not a deviated religious extremist, ultra-racist or overzealous politician taik kucing.
I'm just an ordinary Malaysian, benefitted by his positive dictatorship, of which I'm fully indebted.
So what?
Show me why he should be in hell, not heaven!
Show me also why you, yourself should not be in hell.
Hantu Gigi Jarang
12:31 PM


thankgodiquitbh said...
hey,
you try building and devoting yourself to a newspaper and then see them clowns kill it with so much thought, then you come back and tell rocky or other journalists who have left that they are being personal and they should stop.
NST is personal to many of us and being against the people who are dismantling its glory one page by one page is their rights and my pleasure.
this fight is personal and being personal is the only way you can win a fight. otherwise nothing is not worth fighting for.
12:41 PM


Anonymous said...
I have known Kamrul Idris for a long time (even tho I haven't seen him for a while too) and I believe everyone deserves a second chance in life. But it's very convenient to make someone so beholdened to you your fall-guy, get him to write silly responses to intelligent readers and not take the flak that comes back.The Datin who wrote the letter deserves more respect, as does all readers regardless of their views. This is not the way to show it. No wonder people don't want to read the NST anymore.
12:51 PM


The Man Who Sold The World said...
Rocky
Just to note, in my earlier posting I pointed out "SOME claim you're a sore loser". That some does not include me, otherwise I wouldn't be here in the first place.
Secondly, to the earlier posting by anonymous, I know whom my mentors were and I still stand to believe this posting is balanced, ie both sides of the story were published, unlike our newspapers whom either have half past six reporters or good reporters who get their stories heavily edited making them look like fools.
p/s: If you don't like what you're reading, just leave the blog. Basic common sense.
1:05 PM


Anonymous said...
half-blind, if the many adament fanatics here had half the sight you have, they'd see the point you're trying to make.
1:11 PM


wielmaja said...
I must admit Datin's letter did sound a bit pro TDM but hey, everybody is entitled to his/her own view... that's what press freedom is all about. But for NST to deny her the chance to express her view, that, for me was 25 million nails into the coffin for press freedom.
1:17 PM


----------------------------------------------------

I also posted some comments on Rocky's Post one day earlier, called
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
BRENDAN MEETS ALBOM
http://rockybru.blogspot.com/2006/10/brendan-meets-albom.html


Half Blind said...

Plagiarism is to call someone else's work your own. Eg. I stole the research of Dr Lim Teck Ghee/ASLI on Bumi equity %, but I call it my own research. THAT'S PLAGIARISM.
But to copy or imitate someone else's style is NOT plagarism. If that were plagiarism, then ALL writers of literature today are, because many have copied or imitated the style and expressions of, or otherwise been heavily influenced by, the great literary giants like Dickens, Austen, Twain, Woolf, Faulkner, Hemingway...
I thought literary masters are recognised on the basis of the writers they have managed to INFLUENCE??
Your (and Screenshot's) definition of Plagiarism could well destroy the literary culture as a whole. Watch out - don't let your personal vengence cloud your mind.
11:24 AM


Half Blind said...
Some have argued that it's not plagiarism as such to 'mimick' or copy other writers' style so long as credit is given. That's nonsense.
If that was the rule, every sentence/paragraph written would have to be followed by "ala Dickens (in Bleak House, page 54, Penguin 1985 edition); Austen (in Pride and Prejudice, page 24, Penguin 1998 edition 2005 reprint); Woolf (To the Lighthouse, page 22...); Faulkner (The Sound and the Fury, page 69...); Hemingway (Old Man and the Sea, page 116...)
That's absurd, can't you guys see?
When they say that 'ideas' need to be acknowledged and credited, they mean SPECIFIC AND PARTICULAR theories and data/research such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Giving credit or acknowledgement to literary STYLES is NOT the same - you have the literary critics to do that, who analyse works of fiction and evaluate whether certain styles have been 'well applied/borrowed'.
In the literary world, it's VERY common to borrow the styles of other writers (without giving a lost list of 'source') - they do it ALL THE TIME!!
So, please don't spill your ink without familiarising yourself with what is meant by 'plagiarism' in the first place.
To talk so loud without actually knowing what you are talking about is only to make a fool out of yourself and showing just how shallow the intellectual standard of Malaysian journalists are.
Loud, Empty Can - that applies to both Rocky (I'm sorry, bro) and Screenshot's Jeff Ooi (who has a nasty habit of CENSORING views which are critical of HIM PERSONALLY). Wise up, for the sake of your readers' maturity and for Malaysia's sake.
And to all of the commentators on this blog and Jeff Ooi's, who can't wait to follow the crowd to condemn 'plagiarism', see what the crowd mentality has done to you? Grow up.
p.s: Feel free to mock and ridicule the NST clowns/spin-doctors, because I'm no fan of them either. They have a very long way to go before they deserve to call themselves 'journalists'. But plagiariser? NAH.
12:07 PM

Half Blind said...
Typo. I mean, "(without giving a LONG list of 'source')"
12:10 PM

----------------------------------------------------------

Then, Rocky couldn't take it anymore.

rockybru said...

Dear Half Blind,
I have decided against posting the three latest comments you left for this blog because they provide no new perspective compared with the three that you had sent earlier, which I have already published.
From all six comments that you sent me, you have made it very clear that, no matter what and how, you do not - will not - consider Brendan P's act as plagiarism.
And since you have made this very clear, I see no need to allow you to come out in defence of your position (and Brendan P's sin) each time a poster responds to your comments and tries to make you understand why Brendan did commit plagiarism.
If I allow you to do that, there'll be no end to it.
I hope you will not accuse me of censoring you, like the NST censored the Datin Anonymous, but I do need to maintain a certain minimum standard for this blog.
Thank you for taking part.
8:01 PM

-----------------------------------------------



Questions:

When they say "Don't Plagiarise someone else's words or ideas (journalists can use the words with attribution.)", what does it mean?
Let me put my ideas in a few questions, whcih are not mutually exclusive of each other.

1, Does 'Plagiarise' punish someone for imitating, copying and mimicking of a LITERARY STYLE without giving credit to the 'source' of that style (especially those who do it out of admiration for that style)?

2, In other words, does a writer have to make clear to people where he got the style for every part of his writing?

3, Does the phrase 'words or ideas' above include LITERARY STYLES?

DISCLAIMER: I have ABSOLUTELY NO intention of defending the clowns of NST, but only doing this because I think Rocky's Bru and Screeshots have misled their readers in the meaning of 'Plagiarism'.
If our conclusion is that the NST article is really guilty of 'plagiarism' (not as these 2 blogs understood it, but how the meaning is generally understood by the rest of the world), so be it. At least, we would have had a deeper understanding of the concept. Thanks.

GUARANTEE: NO CENSORSHIP, even of junk or spam. Thanks.

Rocky's Bru - Never Say You Are Sorry

I used the pseudonym, Half Blind, to engage Rocky's Bru on his blog on the issue of Plagiarism. I've posted a few comments in replying to the commentators who insisted that plagiarism was going on in a NST article, but Rocky refused to publish my comments. This is CENSORSHIP.

I do not claim to have got it right. But what I want is to let the READERS judge. Maybe I was wrong, maybe I was right. But the blog owner should not censor me, while at the same time accuse others of censorship. This is HYPOCRISY.

Here's my comments this morning, 2 Nov 2006, 8.46 AM. I don't think Rocky will publish it, so here's my comments, for the record - and for the READERS to judge.

-------------------------------------------------------

Dear Rocky,

I'm very disappointed by your censoring of my comments, but it's too obvious to complain that a petty mind is petty.

But I can understand it if you do not want to make yourself into a laughing stock. It's that thing called 'ego'.

rockybru said:
http://rockybru.blogspot.com/2006/10/letter-plagiarist-wont-print.html#116238249428099697

"I have decided against posting the three latest comments you left for this blog because they provide no new perspective compared with the three that you had sent earlier, which I have already published."

Yet, you don't apply the same standard to those who are SUPPORTING YOUR position, who do not even offer ANY 'perspective' at all, just parroting your views.Why the double standard?



"From all six comments that you sent me, you have made it very clear that, no matter what and how, you do not - will not - consider Brendan P's act as plagiarism."

That's not true. I've given my REASONS in those comments. If the reasons do not make sense, just let your readers rebut, or YOU YOURSELF rebut. And if your readers can show I was wrong, I'll apologise. But would YOU do the same?? As a 'journalist'??

In one of my comments I said that one of your commentators should show how the word 'plagiarism' should apply to this article, and that YOU, if you cannot come out with a convincing demonstration, should have the COURAGE and INTEGRITY of a journalist to apologise - just like what you have accused the NST of NOT DOING.

Another, I tried to show how this Posting of yours is not balanced - talking about YOU here, NOT about the NST article, CORRECT??

How is all that not 'new', or is that 'mere repetition', compared to what those supporters who supported you said so far???!!!

I suggest you let the READERS judge - why should YOU, 'the journalist' - decide what to let your readers read and what not?? Tell me how is this different from what you accuse the NST of doing to the Datin's letter????? Enlighten me!!! You HYPOCRITE.

"And since you have made this very clear, I see no need to allow you to come out in defence of your position (and Brendan P's sin) each time a poster responds to your comments and tries to make you understand why Brendan did commit plagiarism."

For the record, I DON'T KNOW who this chap BP is, but judging from what he wrote I definitely is NOT A FAN of his. He can be put into jail for whatever crime you accuse him of committing and I won't give a toss. All I want is to show:

1, How you have not applied the P concept correctly, hence guilty of MISLEADING your readers; and

2, How you, in refusing to own up to your mistakes, is also a HYPOCRITE like the NST clowns. So, it's okay for YOUR supporter "to come out in defence of your position (and accuse Brendan P of sin) each time a poster parrots your post and tries to repeat why Brendan did commit plagiarism" but it's NOT OKAY for me to show how they are WRONG???

Why this double standard?

"If I allow you to do that, there'll be no end to it."

Tell that to Datin Anonymous - why not?

And why is it okay for 10 of your readers to reply to 1 of my comments, but not for me to reply to their comments via ONE post???

"I hope you will not accuse me of censoring you, like the NST censored the Datin Anonymous, but I do need to maintain a certain minimum standard for this blog."

So, NST cannot maintain "a certain minimum standard" for its published letters, to weed out RANTS?

"Thank you for taking part."

Thank YOU for admitting that you are a hypocrite, by this conduct which you accused others of doing.

What a load of bollocks. You need to answer to God - you will, both for accusing others of being hypocrites and yet pratise hypocrisy yourself.

And, sad to say, judging from how YOU and Jeff Ooi have been blogging, perhaps Malaysians are just too petty and immature to handle free speech.