[Drugmachine]

Hi Rumpole,

No apologies needed here

I read and follow your thoughtful posts.

This post is a bit of 'out of character' from your usual. I was wondering whether you know some er.. 'inside stuff' about the Tey's case. That's why I posted my questions.

Anyway, after reading what you wrote, I still have questions and will refrain from linking too many things/people to Tey. But, as you said, it's fair game for you to point out facts and give a context to consider what's happening in Tey's case.

On your last bit...

"Some of us are discerning enough ..." - meaning your good self, but you have less faith in your fellow readers? "... may color and influence the view of a reader less critical" - meaning you think others may be daft, but you are not. On the other hand, I do have more faith than you that Singaporeans are NOT daft, but just to err on the side of safety, I have ended my thread with the warning from Confucius, which applies to the ST as well as to postings on this forum including mine. You see, I am very fair, I warn people not to believe the ST blindly and also warn them not to believe me blindly!

Anyway, AtticusFinch, thanks for your comments and apologies for my "lawyerly" reply.

Who's Daft

Yeah, I think 'my good self' is not 'daft' - most of the times.. Of cos I do stupid things sometimes, have my share of errors in judgement, lol

On fellow readers, I don't know them, but I'd say this forum has a lot more discerning readers than other online forums. But hey, even in this forum, there are some who may draw all kinds of connections after reading your posts... Just saying.

Yeah, you probably have more faith than me that Singaporeans are not daft (but your faith or my faith either way is not gonna change how Singaporeans are). If they are daft, they are daft; if they are not, they are not.

You made an astonishing guess about my view... when you wrote...

meaning you think others may be daft, but you are not.

I used the word "discerning" for a reason... if I wanted to use the word "daft", then I would have written that. This is a cheap shot for suggesting I think others in this forum are 'daft'. Is this a 'lawyerly' kind of thing? Putting words in my mouth? Anyway, no offence taken cos a cheap shot is a cheap shot, so don't apologise.

I would avoid using the word 'daft' considering it was made fashionable after an old senile man used it on Singaporeans gratuitously. Assuming you are a Singaporean, you would be offended when that word was used to describe you, right?

Warning from Confucius
you mentioned you had a warning from Confucius.

Look, I have no problem with you. I have no problem with other readers who come to different conclusions from me after reading your post.

I think this post of yours is substandard... it's suggesting connections, 'nudge-nudge'. I'm a little disappointed, that's all.

On the Confucius warning, cannot like dat lah... 'Lawyerly' thing again? Put in a caveat? You lawyers are too smart.

Let me ask you this: if the lousy reporters at ST wrote articles, bring in peripheral characters who are known to be corrupt, suggest that Tey is associated with them in some way... nudge-nudge... Then they end their writings with a warning from Confucius and ask their readers not to blindly believe what they wrote ... is that acceptable? Cannot be, right?

I am disappointed cos this post almost descended to that low a level.

Still, at least we learn a few things about One Can't Sing and stuff. By the way, many other earlier posts in this forum have also mentioned most of the things in your post in details.

I look forward to other posts from you, please keep posting.
peace out bro

AF