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.