Life's a terminal disease.
The Buddhists have it right - life sucks.
"Eat well, keep fit, die anyway"
"Since this life here and now is all we can know, our most reasonable option is to live it fully." - Paul Kurtz
L'origine de Bert
Saturday, November 26, 2005
"The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is 'What does a woman want?'" - Sigmund Freud
***
One more lesson we must learn from the Fall of Singapore and the Japanese Occupation:
No matter how benevolent, noble or competent your rulers may appear or make themselves out to be, or how much they profess to be serving their people, they always have their own interests at heart, not those of the people they govern.
So eternal vigilance and ceaseless questioning is a must.
***
Someone came up with the most silly hypothetical argument against the death penalty in Singapore being rescinded for drug traffickers: "now its so indoctrinated...if we were to let him off...then it would be unfair to e rest who have been hanged"
The sad thing is, I can actually see one or two people seriously using this argument. I wonder if they'd say the same about allowing other constituencies to have opposition candidates contesting them, or it would be "unfair" to those others who can't vote.
***
Me on another ridiculous Straits Times Forum letter: Why do we need a propaganda department when the people themselves spout it?
Molly Meek: Maybe the machine has evolved from one that produces propaganda to one that serves as an outlet for people who spout it? This is how we become an "inclusive" society.
***
What's the story on numerology? - "The King James translation of the bible was published in the year 1611, when Shakespeare was 46. In the 46th psalm, the 46th word from the top is "Shake" and the 46th word from the bottom (discounting the liturgical instruction "selah") is "spear." What more proof could you need that Shakespeare wrote the KJV?"
I love the hidden meanings revealed by numbers!
White Elephant T-shirts are now available. I've placed an order. Have you? Actually I'm very sad. I wired them the money on the night of the 16th, but still haven't gotten my T-shirt. It was supposed to have been sent out "within this week", so it should be in the mail by now. And I was looking forward to wearing it to my exam today...
***
One more lesson we must learn from the Fall of Singapore and the Japanese Occupation:
No matter how benevolent, noble or competent your rulers may appear or make themselves out to be, or how much they profess to be serving their people, they always have their own interests at heart, not those of the people they govern.
So eternal vigilance and ceaseless questioning is a must.
***
Someone came up with the most silly hypothetical argument against the death penalty in Singapore being rescinded for drug traffickers: "now its so indoctrinated...if we were to let him off...then it would be unfair to e rest who have been hanged"
The sad thing is, I can actually see one or two people seriously using this argument. I wonder if they'd say the same about allowing other constituencies to have opposition candidates contesting them, or it would be "unfair" to those others who can't vote.
***
Me on another ridiculous Straits Times Forum letter: Why do we need a propaganda department when the people themselves spout it?
Molly Meek: Maybe the machine has evolved from one that produces propaganda to one that serves as an outlet for people who spout it? This is how we become an "inclusive" society.
***
What's the story on numerology? - "The King James translation of the bible was published in the year 1611, when Shakespeare was 46. In the 46th psalm, the 46th word from the top is "Shake" and the 46th word from the bottom (discounting the liturgical instruction "selah") is "spear." What more proof could you need that Shakespeare wrote the KJV?"
I love the hidden meanings revealed by numbers!
White Elephant T-shirts are now available. I've placed an order. Have you? Actually I'm very sad. I wired them the money on the night of the 16th, but still haven't gotten my T-shirt. It was supposed to have been sent out "within this week", so it should be in the mail by now. And I was looking forward to wearing it to my exam today...
Post ID: 113299958266889566
Friday, November 25, 2005
Mandela shows he's out to undermine South Africa
IN RECENT days, the campaign worldwide to stop apartheid in South Africa has intensified.
Amid calls to take the case to the International Court of Justice, South African seditionist Nelson Mandela has chosen to lend his support in protest against apartheid.
In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation, Mandela called on South Africa to end 'many years of tyranny, exploitation and oppression of my people by the whites'.
He added that 'I do not deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation.'
In my opinion, his comments are clearly unhelpful and unconstructive. They show the extent Mandela will go to to align himself with other Western democracies to undermine South Africa.
Lest Mandela is mistaken, apartheid is a purely domestic matter that no other country has a right to interfere in. It is simply letting our laws run their course.
Mind you, our laws are very clear as to how apartheid should be enforced.
Our laws and statutes state clearly that apartheid shall be practised in South Africa. "Europeans Only" and "Non-Europeans Only" signs, too, are displayed prominently.
Citizens of South Africa know that apartheid prevails in South Africa, yet they choose to reside here.
Our laws are applied fairly across the board to South Africans and foreigners alike. In this case, our Government has found no grounds for abolishing apartheid.
The United Nations has passed, under Article 13(1)(a) of the U.N. Charter, a Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. The Convention declares that "apartheid is a crime against humanity," and it criminalizes the principal features of apartheid, namely murder, torture, and arbitrary arrests of members of one particular race group. Unfortunately, they fail to realise that the United Nations is the party commiting a crime against South Africa for refusing to recognise South Africa's sovereign right to let our laws run their course.
As a South African, it is shameful of Mandela to actively call on other countries to interfere in South Africa's judicial and legislative process.
This is another clear example of how low he will stoop to undermine South Africa, through every means possible.
Alan Keyes
***
Chee shows he's out to undermine S'pore
IN RECENT days, the campaign worldwide to stop apartheid in South Africa has intensified.
Amid calls to take the case to the International Court of Justice, South African seditionist Nelson Mandela has chosen to lend his support in protest against apartheid.
In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation, Mandela called on South Africa to end 'many years of tyranny, exploitation and oppression of my people by the whites'.
He added that 'I do not deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation.'
In my opinion, his comments are clearly unhelpful and unconstructive. They show the extent Mandela will go to to align himself with other Western democracies to undermine South Africa.
Lest Mandela is mistaken, apartheid is a purely domestic matter that no other country has a right to interfere in. It is simply letting our laws run their course.
Mind you, our laws are very clear as to how apartheid should be enforced.
Our laws and statutes state clearly that apartheid shall be practised in South Africa. "Europeans Only" and "Non-Europeans Only" signs, too, are displayed prominently.
Citizens of South Africa know that apartheid prevails in South Africa, yet they choose to reside here.
Our laws are applied fairly across the board to South Africans and foreigners alike. In this case, our Government has found no grounds for abolishing apartheid.
The United Nations has passed, under Article 13(1)(a) of the U.N. Charter, a Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. The Convention declares that "apartheid is a crime against humanity," and it criminalizes the principal features of apartheid, namely murder, torture, and arbitrary arrests of members of one particular race group. Unfortunately, they fail to realise that the United Nations is the party commiting a crime against South Africa for refusing to recognise South Africa's sovereign right to let our laws run their course.
As a South African, it is shameful of Mandela to actively call on other countries to interfere in South Africa's judicial and legislative process.
This is another clear example of how low he will stoop to undermine South Africa, through every means possible.
Alan Keyes
***
Chee shows he's out to undermine S'pore
Post ID: 113289011865795277
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
A forum posting helpfully combining my next (and last!) 2 papers:
In the last chapter of the text, Cosmides and Tooby proposes, via the frequentist hypothesis, that human cognitive mechanisms are designed to work with frequency representations (both input and output) and thus are ill equipped to work with percentage and probability data. The famous medical diagnosis problem is also presented and it is shown how people perform poorly on the percentage/probability version, better on the frequency information version and best on the active pictorial frequency version.
However, the text mentioned that 45% of experts at Harvard Medical School answered 95% (taken as ignoring base rates of false positives) when the actual answer was 2%. There are actually studies that suggest that this error rate is even higher. Eddy (1982) posed a similar medical diagnosis problem to actual physicians, and 95% of the physicians’ answers were near to 10 times that of the actual probability of the person who tested positive, actually having the disease. In a more recent replication, Hoffrage and Gigerenzer (1998) found similar results with physicians again.
It is probably the case that physicians receive little training in statistics, but a similar problem plagues scientists, including psychologists (who receive sufficiently rigorous training in statistics) in the case of practicing null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) in research. In a nutshell (for those who are unfamiliar) NHST requires that one specify a pair of hypotheses; the first is called the null hypothesis, which is usually a statement of little or no effect (in contrast to the researcher’s aim to find an effect). NHST yields a probability value, p, which is the probability of the data occurring given that the null hypothesis is true. If this probability is low enough (a criterion of 5% is the norm, also known as the alpha level), the null hypothesis is rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis, which is what most researchers hope for.
Inadequacies of such a system aside, the p value can be expressed as P(data|null is true). However, many scientists wish instead to know P(null is true|data), which is the probability that the null hypothesis is true, given that the data has occurred. The two are not the same, and to find the latter one would need to perform a Bayesian maneuver which requires information about the base rates of the null and alternative hypotheses being true. However, many scientists commit a serious error here by ignoring the requirement that base rates need to be known for the latter to be calculated. For example, Oakes (1986) found that 96 percent of academic psychologists believed that a significance test (i.e. the p value) indicated the probability of the null hypothesis (directly believing this to be the p-value) or the alternative hypothesis (subtracting the p-value from 1) being true.
This is a little different from the medical diagnosis problem, as base rates are usually unknown in psychological research. I think, however, that the failure to acknowledge the requirement of base rates in calculations, as well as poor operational ability with percentage and probabilistic data underlie both problems.
I’m not sure whether there is a good way to portray the information NHST works on in frequency formats similar to what Cosmides and Tooby did, or whether such a way will reduce such inferential errors by NHST users, but I’m quite sure that it would be a really troublesome modification to an already troublesome procedure. Efforts to train students and teachers alike in conditional probability and Bayesian reasoning have met with little success (Sedlmeier, 1999). Perhaps scientists should just realize that they are just as human as everyone else and that these reasoning errors are a constantly looming threat while conducting research. Just my two cents’ worth!
Incidentally "just some thoughts", "my two cents worth" and variants thereof are simultaneously the most annoying and most common forum signatures one can see, especially if followed by a smiley.
In the last chapter of the text, Cosmides and Tooby proposes, via the frequentist hypothesis, that human cognitive mechanisms are designed to work with frequency representations (both input and output) and thus are ill equipped to work with percentage and probability data. The famous medical diagnosis problem is also presented and it is shown how people perform poorly on the percentage/probability version, better on the frequency information version and best on the active pictorial frequency version.
However, the text mentioned that 45% of experts at Harvard Medical School answered 95% (taken as ignoring base rates of false positives) when the actual answer was 2%. There are actually studies that suggest that this error rate is even higher. Eddy (1982) posed a similar medical diagnosis problem to actual physicians, and 95% of the physicians’ answers were near to 10 times that of the actual probability of the person who tested positive, actually having the disease. In a more recent replication, Hoffrage and Gigerenzer (1998) found similar results with physicians again.
It is probably the case that physicians receive little training in statistics, but a similar problem plagues scientists, including psychologists (who receive sufficiently rigorous training in statistics) in the case of practicing null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) in research. In a nutshell (for those who are unfamiliar) NHST requires that one specify a pair of hypotheses; the first is called the null hypothesis, which is usually a statement of little or no effect (in contrast to the researcher’s aim to find an effect). NHST yields a probability value, p, which is the probability of the data occurring given that the null hypothesis is true. If this probability is low enough (a criterion of 5% is the norm, also known as the alpha level), the null hypothesis is rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis, which is what most researchers hope for.
Inadequacies of such a system aside, the p value can be expressed as P(data|null is true). However, many scientists wish instead to know P(null is true|data), which is the probability that the null hypothesis is true, given that the data has occurred. The two are not the same, and to find the latter one would need to perform a Bayesian maneuver which requires information about the base rates of the null and alternative hypotheses being true. However, many scientists commit a serious error here by ignoring the requirement that base rates need to be known for the latter to be calculated. For example, Oakes (1986) found that 96 percent of academic psychologists believed that a significance test (i.e. the p value) indicated the probability of the null hypothesis (directly believing this to be the p-value) or the alternative hypothesis (subtracting the p-value from 1) being true.
This is a little different from the medical diagnosis problem, as base rates are usually unknown in psychological research. I think, however, that the failure to acknowledge the requirement of base rates in calculations, as well as poor operational ability with percentage and probabilistic data underlie both problems.
I’m not sure whether there is a good way to portray the information NHST works on in frequency formats similar to what Cosmides and Tooby did, or whether such a way will reduce such inferential errors by NHST users, but I’m quite sure that it would be a really troublesome modification to an already troublesome procedure. Efforts to train students and teachers alike in conditional probability and Bayesian reasoning have met with little success (Sedlmeier, 1999). Perhaps scientists should just realize that they are just as human as everyone else and that these reasoning errors are a constantly looming threat while conducting research. Just my two cents’ worth!
Incidentally "just some thoughts", "my two cents worth" and variants thereof are simultaneously the most annoying and most common forum signatures one can see, especially if followed by a smiley.
Post ID: 113262715279151433
Friday, November 18, 2005
I really really didn't want to post any more about this topic; flame me for it if you want - I would love to come out to play with everyone, but I still have unfinished affairs with the twin IS and LM curves, Robinson Crusoe and his coconuts, Eliade and his drug-induced eerie green glow, Buss and his numerous examples of inter-gender interaction and last but not least, Time fixed-effects models, but someone took a great deal of time to write a thoughtful and heartfelt 3,807 word open letter to her which I felt touched on the crux of the issue (including some aspects ignored or merely alluded to by most). The fact that I'm publishing a letter in which religion figures prominently, despite my known and evident distaste of it, should tell you something.
Besides which, the New Paper followup was really sucky.
(I must add, though, that if anyone else feels to urge to write another thoughtful, heartfelt letter to her, PLEASE do not send it to me. Thank you!)
And in yet another vainglorious attempt to forestall silly comments which address points already made/answered in the body of the post: my posting of this open letter does not constitute an endorsement of all the points of view put forward in it.
With that, I wish everyone happy hunting (of me, of course - someone else has had more than her fair share of it):
Let's be *special* together. *Spicy games* are always fun.
Dear Dawn,
I understand that you are going through an extremely rough period right now and I feel very sorry for you. To speak the truth, I do pray for your spirits to be lifted as my heart goes out to you. I know you must be feeling very upset right now. However, I can't help but feel that you do somehow deserve your situation right now, and should bear the responsibility of the outcome today. This is because you have committed 5 sins that most of us find it extremely hard to forgive, even for a nice christian lady like me.
1) You threw away the identity God and your parents have given you.
Everyone is special and unique in their own ways. The set of features you are born with is God's gift to you (I expect you know this since you are such a devoted Christian). However, we have to admit that plastic surgery has become a part of the 21st century with the advancement in science and technology. There is no fault in undergoing plastic surgery, in fact, plastic surgery has done a lot of good to people who are born with defects (cleft lip) or who met with unfortunate accidents (caught in a fire). It has also served its purpose of enhancing one's appearance so as to boost one's confidence in life. However, what you did was far more than that. In fact, it is too much to be acceptable. Why do I say so?
What you did was not a simple double eye lid surgery nor a minor nose job. You changed your entire face, and what we absolutely cannot accept - your heritage, as well. Many korean stars have had surgery done but why do we still love and support them? But remember Dawn, you are different. What you did was more than just plastic surgery. Let me raise two analogies. Look at Michael Jackson. Yes, he did plastic surgery. And he turned from a black man, to a white man. He changed his race. Look at Harisu. Yes, she did plastic surgery. And she turned from a man, to a woman. She changed her gender. This is the extent of your surgery. Look at Dawn Yeo. Yes, she did plastic surgery. And she turned from a pure chinese girl, to a whole new different Dutch - Thai girl. To a girl with an entire different face and ethnicity, that her friends from the past couldn't even recognise the least bit!
Dawn, you abandoned your heritage and your ethnicity. This, we cannot accept. You may be disatisfied with the looks the "Big Guy up in the heavens" has blessed you with. But how can you turn away the ethnicity and identity God has given you? You speak like a devoted Christian woman, but you actually did such a hurtful thing to betray your beliefs. This we cannot forgive. You not only changed your face, you changed your roots. The difference here is enhancing one's feature and changing one's identity. You did the latter.
At the very least, Michael Jackson and Harisu are at peace with their decision transform God's gift and are able to come to terms with it by not hiding it. They are able to face the world bravely and are responsible for their decision. Another example would be our very own local celebrity, Quan Yifeng. People were discussing about her having had a nose bridge surgery recently (small surgery compared to yours). But did she deny it? No. Go buy a copy of this week's 8 days and you would know. She not only admitted to it but even told everyone that she had lots of botox done and even revealed that she had it done in taiwan and have since reversed the surgery. She even allowed the press to take photos of her without make up on. And the result of it? She gained, not negative responses (like you did), but instead, people applauded her for her honesty and candidness. She did not treat it as a disgraceful act and admitted it graciously. Naturally, people wouldn't see it as a disgraceful act too. Instead, they admire her for her honesty.
But you? Not only are you too cowardly to face up to it, you accused people of defaming you, denied it and refused to be responsible for your decision. Why do you not dare to admit it? Is it because, deep down inside, you know that it was wrong of you to do so? If you see no wrong in what you did, why not have the courage to come out and proclaim, "Yes, I, Dawn Yeo has had plastic surgery done."
2) You exploited the sympathy of the public
You wrote such a admirable and touching entry on how people have accused you of being a rich spoilt brat. You said you came from a "SINGLE INCOME FAMILY". But we came to realise from the Newpaper that Lo and Behold, that's only because your father "RETIRED", not RETRENCHED. There's a huge difference between the two you realised? Being able to retire is a cause for joy because one can finally enjoy the later part of his life after working so hard. However, being retrenched is not a choice and leads to one's financial problems. Do you know the troubles and problems that comes with being retrenched? Do you know how many people out there are being retrenched and have trouble even making ends meet? And there you are, blessed with such a wealthy family and your father having the priviledge to RETIRE because even without his source of income, your family have enough money to spend for the rest of your lives. Do you know that your family is so rich that even without you father working, your family is able to live so comfortably? Do you know how blessed you are? Yet, you make yourself sound so pitiful by calling your family a SINGLE INCOME FAMILY. yes, technically speaking, you are not wrong. Your family is indeed a single income one. And like you said, and quoted from you yourself. It's all about WORD PLAY. You are the master of the art of WORD PLAY. You twisted the words such that a priviledge becomes such a cause for sympathy.
You said, once again, quoted from you yourself, "I don't even live in a detached house." Once again, your outright lie is exposed in the Newpaper. Not only do you live in a DETACHED HOUSE, you live in a BUKIT TIMAH SEMI DETACHED HOUSE. tell me, how is that a symbol of being just a upper MIDDLE-CLASS? I admit to feeling a bout of anger towards you right now simply because, you do not know how to appreciate the gifts God has bestowed upon you. If living in a BUKIT TIMAH SEMI DETACHED HOUSE is considered middle-class, are you calling all those people who live in HDBs, the LOWER CLASS? then what about those who are unable to even pay their monthly rent for a 3-room flat? what do you call this people? How could you not see and treasure the wealth God has blessed you with? Dawn, I am extremely disappointed with your inability to appreciate, treasure, or even recognise the blessings you have received. Must you experience poverty before you realise that the BUKIT TIMAH DETACHED HOUSE you live so comfortably in, is something that not half the population can afford? how can you call it MIDDLE-CLASS? I fail to forgive you for your unappreciation and decadence towards God's gifts.
Next, you portrayed yourself as such a fillial daughter who cares for the purse strings of your parents so much. At that point of time, when I read that you said, "Do you know how EXPENSIVE it is to study abroad? I feel guilty just even thinking about the sums." and "I hate asking for more money from my parents." I felt such strong admiration for you. But having known that you did such extensive surgery, I can't help feeling that you are such a hypocrite. Do you know how much rhinoplasty cost? At the very least $10,000 (nose tip and bridge). Double eyelid surgery, at the very least $6000. All the other surgeries you did to enlarge your eyes, change your face shape, even your body assets, lips, all those would have amounted well over $50,000. Dawn, didn't you feel "guilty" when your parents paid that hefty sum for you? Did you really "hated" yourself when you ask for those money from your parents? If you really hate to spend your parents money so much, why let them spend such a huge amount of money to change the face and body they have given to you? Is that what the fillial daughter you have portrayed yourself to be, supposed to do? I don't think so.
3) You lied.
Once again, it is all about word play. Yes, to be fair to you, you never once said outright, "NO I DID NOT HAVE PLASTIC SURGERY DONE." But dawn, remember you posted about those grievances that you suffered when people "ACCUSED" you of going surgery? using the word 'accused', and making yourself sound so wronged is as good as saying that it is untrue. when the reporter questioned you about people talking about you doing plastic surgery, you didn't deny it because you knew that you did. so you did the next best thing. in your very own words, you said that "and yea true...people also accuse me of having surgery...." (quoted from your blog) and said, "what can i do about it?", indirectly but effectively meaning that those are just untrue gossips and you are the wronged victim being 'accused'. Please Dawn, stop making yourself sound victimised because not once were you wronged at all. Everything that was said about you were facts and you wronged others for magligning you.
I guess you probably remember typing this in defense of someone pointing out that she saw the "cut lines" and "surgery scars" above your eyes. Your response was "another thing, sorry to burst your bubble but lemme be helpful n share a makeup secret: u can use brown eyeshadow to accentuate the crease of your eyelid making it look deeper. when u look down, it’ll obviously look like there’s a slight line. take a look at the angelina jolie pic i had, don’t her eyes look even more “cut”? haha cmon its just simple makeup sheesh!" this can be seen here - http://unionpost.org/?p=47. After which, the poor girl who was telling the truth all the while was scolded viciously by your supporters who believed your words and told her off for wrongly accusing you. Tell me, have you ever felt guilty when you see someone being scolded for magligning you when all she did was told the truth, while on the other hand, you LIED? can you touch your heart and tell me that calling those surgery scars a "makeup secret" does not count as DENYING that you had plastic surgery? you talk about WORD PLAY indeed, you know it so well because you have practised it so often.
4) You brought it upon yourself.
Dawn, you realised that 3 years after you had your surgery, not one of your friends or acquaintances came out to talk about it or expose you with words and pictures? Why is it happening now? that's because you thrust yourself into the limelight and knowing that you got it with underhand means (using money in exchange for fame), their integrity spured them to reveal the truth. If you argue that having done plastic surgery is your private life and no one should have any right in breaking into your privacy, then you should have jolly well kept your life PRIVATE! but no, you chose to make yourself a public figure. You gave the public the right to scrutinise your life, and your past. This was a choice that you chose to take, and now that it has brought upon the consequences, you only have yourself to blame.
Let me give you a real life example. I used to have a classmate who was extremely beautiful. She was so pretty that most people in school would notice her. However, she kept a low profile and never did anything to attract attention. She only hung out with her close friends and mixed with her classmates. She never tried seeking popularity and instead, avoided it. She was nominated as Prom Queen but she turned it down. She was approached by Carrie Models and Phantom Agency but she declined. She was asked to participate in Miss Singapore Universe but she refused. She never wanted to be under the limelight. Later, we realised that she has not always been pretty. Yes, you are right. She had plastic surgery done, thus, the beauty. But she only did minor surgeries, if i'm not wrong just a low double eyelid and a slight nose bridge enhancement. But when the secret was out, did anybody care? No. When people heard, they took a few seconds to remember who she was and only said "oh, is it?" in response and never talked much about it. Why? Because she was always a low profile, private figure. People hardly know about her so what was there to talk about?
By attracting so much attention to yourself, Dawn, you made the mistake of allowing people to expose you. As a public figure, you have to answer to the public. Let me cite an example. Recently, Jay Chou had to apologise to the public for sticking his middle finger at the papparazi. He might not have been in the wrong, but why did he have to apologise? He had to apologise to the public because as a public figure, he set the wrong example to the public, he was ANSWERABLE to the public. He wasn't apologising to the papparazi, but to members of the public. That's the responsibility of being an artiste, Dawn. You have to learn to accept that.
A piece of advice to you. If you wish for this to tide over, your best choice is to remove yourself from the limelight. If you stop attracting the attention of the public and live a private life, no one would have the access into your deepest secrets. People will eventually stop talking about you. However, if you continue on with this or venture further, there will only be more people discussing about your darkest secrets. It might not even be confined into just Singapore anymore. It will spread to Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, whatever country you go to. When you become a public figure in those countries, you may not only see your 'before' and 'after' pictures in singapore, those unglamorous pictures might even make its way onto the covers of Taiwan's entertainment tabloid or Hong Kong papparazi news.
Even minor surgeries are being made as headlines by the unfeeling papparazi in those countries, what more major extensive surgery like yours? you are considered sheltered in Singapore. At least you haven't appeared on the newspapers and magazines yet. If you do not want a day like that to happen, don't give the reporters the need to bother about your secrets. How? Don't make yourself a concern of theirs. Be a private figure, living a private life with loved ones who can accept you. The papparazi in Taiwan, Hong Kong and China would be going "Dawn who?" when people reveal your secret to them. Because you would just be a normal Singaporean and they wouldn't care less about whether you had surgery done. This is your only way to protect yourself. If you still choose to be a public figure, in Singapore and in other countries, then you choose to subject yourself to people knowing your secrets on your own accord.
5) You cheated the feelings of your supporters, Tinsel Management, admirers and fans.
All those people who looked up to you, admired you, supported you, signed you up and gave you opportunities for your looks. You cheated them. Tinsel Management looked at your photos, felt you were beyond beautiful, decided to groom you. You had no special talents nor even the outgoing personality that an artiste should have. They felt that you are a "INTROVERT", "ORDINARY" and needed alot of "HONING AND POLISHING". meaning, it wasn't your personality, character or talents that attracted them, it was your "EXTRAORDINARY" face. Is it fair to them? You bought the "EXTRAORDINARY" face with money. By signing you up, Tinsel Management is sending out a message that says, "If you want to be a star, BUY your dreams with money. Go and sell your body or hope that you have rich parents, so that you would have money to BUY yourself a beautiful face. Better still, make yourself look like a DUTCH and THAI. It doesn't matter if you can't sing, act, dance or have any talents. It doesn't even matter if you are shy and have no personality. As long as you have money, go and change the face God and your parents have given you. Then, we would make your dreams come true and groom you into a star!"
Tinsel Management, I do not think it is a morally correct message to be sending out to the young minds out there. As an established and reputable agency, this is not a stand that you should take. Please reconsider your decision.
And Dawn, not only did you cheat Tinsel Management, you cheated those people who supported you so strongly. Do you know I have a 15- year old cousin. She is one of the reason I decided to write this letter to you. She was once a avid supporter of yours. She idolised you. She stood up for you. She defended you. When people accused you of having done plastic surgery, she chose to believe you. She even posted defending messages such as "Do not accuse Dawn. You are all just jealous. She looks so gorgeous because she is mixed Dutch and Thai like she said! Stop magligning her!" I believe I can still find such messages left by her and your other supporters on the internet. How do you feel about deceiving those people who supported you and believed in you? How do you feel about making them go all the way defending you and now, people are telling them to go EAT THEIR WORDS. Do you know that my cousin defended you when her friends insisted that you definitely had surgery done and now that the secret is out, they are all MOCKING her and LAUGHING at her for being so gullible and STUPID? she is the center of jokes among her friends now and is teased constantly about it. But what hurts her the most is not having to eat her words, but it's because she feels cheated by you. She trusted you, she supported you, she defended you, she stood up for you, she believed you. But now? she is proven to be wrong and yet you do not even have the courage to admit your mistake and to apologise to those who supported you. You know what the 15 year old girl said that struck a chord in me? She said, "I'm not angry with Dawn, I'm just disappointed with her..."
Dawn, this issue is no longer about yourself. You have pulled others down into the water along with you. Many people have been implicated and they may be hurt too. This people are friends of yours and those you care about. People like your best friends, Grace and Candice. Because of you, their faces are being analysed and scrutinised too. Their secrets may be revealed and publicised too. All because of you. You implicated them and they may be hurt because of you. If you want to protect the secrets of your friends, if you truly care about them, please do something about it. Admit your mistake, apologise for it, pull yourself out from the public eye. This is the least you can do for them. And your poor sister, she does not even have a choice of doing even the least bit of enhancement to her features in future because everyone will be watching her transformation from now on. People will be talking about your dear mother having possibly done surgery too since she willingly and generously allowed you to do it. And even your boyfriend. They will laugh and mock him for having a man-made, manufactured, carefully carved-out girlfriend.
Now, when people hear the name DAWN YEO, they will no longer see the image of that beautiful, big-eyed, slim-faced, sharp nose, lovely Dawn. The image that comes into everyone's mind is those 'Before' pictures that is circulating around. And trust me, they aren't very flattering pictures, not a very pretty image in our mind at all. Please look into your conscience, Dawn. Imagine if you are a man, one day, your wife comes clean with you and tells you, "Dear, I was actually a male before I met you. Please forgive me for not telling you." Imagine how the man would feel. Cheated, most definitely. That's what you did to us. I don't know if your boyfriend knows about your surgery and how you looked before. If he didn't know about it before this, I think you have much apologising to do to him because his feelings are those that you exploited most.
I may be angry at you for the above 5 wrongs that you did, but a part of me feels sorry for you too and I sincerely hope you would change for the better. A first step would be to admit what you previously denied, then apologise, then live a private life. Hopefully, the public would grant you your wish for privacy then, if you show that you have shown remorse and treasure the many gifts you are blessed with. Respect your own privacy (stop thrusting yourself under the public eye), and people would respect your privacy too.
And one last thing that I am extremely displeased with you about. Please do not say this: "If people want to continue to crucify me go ahead and crucify me." (quoted from your blog). If you insist on saying that you are being 'CRUCIFIED', just remember, Jesus was crucified because he did great things, you are 'crucified' because you did wrong things.
Please stop accusing your 'fellow humans' of being 'frightful' and making yourself sound so victimised, because the above 5 sins that you did fully shows that you are the one who has wronged. Repent and seek for forgiveness is what you should do. I will pray for you. Hopefully, this will tide over soon. May God bless you.
Love,
a fellow human.
[Ed: In case it wasn't clear enough, this letter was not written by me.]
Besides which, the New Paper followup was really sucky.
(I must add, though, that if anyone else feels to urge to write another thoughtful, heartfelt letter to her, PLEASE do not send it to me. Thank you!)
And in yet another vainglorious attempt to forestall silly comments which address points already made/answered in the body of the post: my posting of this open letter does not constitute an endorsement of all the points of view put forward in it.
With that, I wish everyone happy hunting (of me, of course - someone else has had more than her fair share of it):
Let's be *special* together. *Spicy games* are always fun.
Dear Dawn,
I understand that you are going through an extremely rough period right now and I feel very sorry for you. To speak the truth, I do pray for your spirits to be lifted as my heart goes out to you. I know you must be feeling very upset right now. However, I can't help but feel that you do somehow deserve your situation right now, and should bear the responsibility of the outcome today. This is because you have committed 5 sins that most of us find it extremely hard to forgive, even for a nice christian lady like me.
1) You threw away the identity God and your parents have given you.
Everyone is special and unique in their own ways. The set of features you are born with is God's gift to you (I expect you know this since you are such a devoted Christian). However, we have to admit that plastic surgery has become a part of the 21st century with the advancement in science and technology. There is no fault in undergoing plastic surgery, in fact, plastic surgery has done a lot of good to people who are born with defects (cleft lip) or who met with unfortunate accidents (caught in a fire). It has also served its purpose of enhancing one's appearance so as to boost one's confidence in life. However, what you did was far more than that. In fact, it is too much to be acceptable. Why do I say so?
What you did was not a simple double eye lid surgery nor a minor nose job. You changed your entire face, and what we absolutely cannot accept - your heritage, as well. Many korean stars have had surgery done but why do we still love and support them? But remember Dawn, you are different. What you did was more than just plastic surgery. Let me raise two analogies. Look at Michael Jackson. Yes, he did plastic surgery. And he turned from a black man, to a white man. He changed his race. Look at Harisu. Yes, she did plastic surgery. And she turned from a man, to a woman. She changed her gender. This is the extent of your surgery. Look at Dawn Yeo. Yes, she did plastic surgery. And she turned from a pure chinese girl, to a whole new different Dutch - Thai girl. To a girl with an entire different face and ethnicity, that her friends from the past couldn't even recognise the least bit!
Dawn, you abandoned your heritage and your ethnicity. This, we cannot accept. You may be disatisfied with the looks the "Big Guy up in the heavens" has blessed you with. But how can you turn away the ethnicity and identity God has given you? You speak like a devoted Christian woman, but you actually did such a hurtful thing to betray your beliefs. This we cannot forgive. You not only changed your face, you changed your roots. The difference here is enhancing one's feature and changing one's identity. You did the latter.
At the very least, Michael Jackson and Harisu are at peace with their decision transform God's gift and are able to come to terms with it by not hiding it. They are able to face the world bravely and are responsible for their decision. Another example would be our very own local celebrity, Quan Yifeng. People were discussing about her having had a nose bridge surgery recently (small surgery compared to yours). But did she deny it? No. Go buy a copy of this week's 8 days and you would know. She not only admitted to it but even told everyone that she had lots of botox done and even revealed that she had it done in taiwan and have since reversed the surgery. She even allowed the press to take photos of her without make up on. And the result of it? She gained, not negative responses (like you did), but instead, people applauded her for her honesty and candidness. She did not treat it as a disgraceful act and admitted it graciously. Naturally, people wouldn't see it as a disgraceful act too. Instead, they admire her for her honesty.
But you? Not only are you too cowardly to face up to it, you accused people of defaming you, denied it and refused to be responsible for your decision. Why do you not dare to admit it? Is it because, deep down inside, you know that it was wrong of you to do so? If you see no wrong in what you did, why not have the courage to come out and proclaim, "Yes, I, Dawn Yeo has had plastic surgery done."
2) You exploited the sympathy of the public
You wrote such a admirable and touching entry on how people have accused you of being a rich spoilt brat. You said you came from a "SINGLE INCOME FAMILY". But we came to realise from the Newpaper that Lo and Behold, that's only because your father "RETIRED", not RETRENCHED. There's a huge difference between the two you realised? Being able to retire is a cause for joy because one can finally enjoy the later part of his life after working so hard. However, being retrenched is not a choice and leads to one's financial problems. Do you know the troubles and problems that comes with being retrenched? Do you know how many people out there are being retrenched and have trouble even making ends meet? And there you are, blessed with such a wealthy family and your father having the priviledge to RETIRE because even without his source of income, your family have enough money to spend for the rest of your lives. Do you know that your family is so rich that even without you father working, your family is able to live so comfortably? Do you know how blessed you are? Yet, you make yourself sound so pitiful by calling your family a SINGLE INCOME FAMILY. yes, technically speaking, you are not wrong. Your family is indeed a single income one. And like you said, and quoted from you yourself. It's all about WORD PLAY. You are the master of the art of WORD PLAY. You twisted the words such that a priviledge becomes such a cause for sympathy.
You said, once again, quoted from you yourself, "I don't even live in a detached house." Once again, your outright lie is exposed in the Newpaper. Not only do you live in a DETACHED HOUSE, you live in a BUKIT TIMAH SEMI DETACHED HOUSE. tell me, how is that a symbol of being just a upper MIDDLE-CLASS? I admit to feeling a bout of anger towards you right now simply because, you do not know how to appreciate the gifts God has bestowed upon you. If living in a BUKIT TIMAH SEMI DETACHED HOUSE is considered middle-class, are you calling all those people who live in HDBs, the LOWER CLASS? then what about those who are unable to even pay their monthly rent for a 3-room flat? what do you call this people? How could you not see and treasure the wealth God has blessed you with? Dawn, I am extremely disappointed with your inability to appreciate, treasure, or even recognise the blessings you have received. Must you experience poverty before you realise that the BUKIT TIMAH DETACHED HOUSE you live so comfortably in, is something that not half the population can afford? how can you call it MIDDLE-CLASS? I fail to forgive you for your unappreciation and decadence towards God's gifts.
Next, you portrayed yourself as such a fillial daughter who cares for the purse strings of your parents so much. At that point of time, when I read that you said, "Do you know how EXPENSIVE it is to study abroad? I feel guilty just even thinking about the sums." and "I hate asking for more money from my parents." I felt such strong admiration for you. But having known that you did such extensive surgery, I can't help feeling that you are such a hypocrite. Do you know how much rhinoplasty cost? At the very least $10,000 (nose tip and bridge). Double eyelid surgery, at the very least $6000. All the other surgeries you did to enlarge your eyes, change your face shape, even your body assets, lips, all those would have amounted well over $50,000. Dawn, didn't you feel "guilty" when your parents paid that hefty sum for you? Did you really "hated" yourself when you ask for those money from your parents? If you really hate to spend your parents money so much, why let them spend such a huge amount of money to change the face and body they have given to you? Is that what the fillial daughter you have portrayed yourself to be, supposed to do? I don't think so.
3) You lied.
Once again, it is all about word play. Yes, to be fair to you, you never once said outright, "NO I DID NOT HAVE PLASTIC SURGERY DONE." But dawn, remember you posted about those grievances that you suffered when people "ACCUSED" you of going surgery? using the word 'accused', and making yourself sound so wronged is as good as saying that it is untrue. when the reporter questioned you about people talking about you doing plastic surgery, you didn't deny it because you knew that you did. so you did the next best thing. in your very own words, you said that "and yea true...people also accuse me of having surgery...." (quoted from your blog) and said, "what can i do about it?", indirectly but effectively meaning that those are just untrue gossips and you are the wronged victim being 'accused'. Please Dawn, stop making yourself sound victimised because not once were you wronged at all. Everything that was said about you were facts and you wronged others for magligning you.
I guess you probably remember typing this in defense of someone pointing out that she saw the "cut lines" and "surgery scars" above your eyes. Your response was "another thing, sorry to burst your bubble but lemme be helpful n share a makeup secret: u can use brown eyeshadow to accentuate the crease of your eyelid making it look deeper. when u look down, it’ll obviously look like there’s a slight line. take a look at the angelina jolie pic i had, don’t her eyes look even more “cut”? haha cmon its just simple makeup sheesh!" this can be seen here - http://unionpost.org/?p=47. After which, the poor girl who was telling the truth all the while was scolded viciously by your supporters who believed your words and told her off for wrongly accusing you. Tell me, have you ever felt guilty when you see someone being scolded for magligning you when all she did was told the truth, while on the other hand, you LIED? can you touch your heart and tell me that calling those surgery scars a "makeup secret" does not count as DENYING that you had plastic surgery? you talk about WORD PLAY indeed, you know it so well because you have practised it so often.
4) You brought it upon yourself.
Dawn, you realised that 3 years after you had your surgery, not one of your friends or acquaintances came out to talk about it or expose you with words and pictures? Why is it happening now? that's because you thrust yourself into the limelight and knowing that you got it with underhand means (using money in exchange for fame), their integrity spured them to reveal the truth. If you argue that having done plastic surgery is your private life and no one should have any right in breaking into your privacy, then you should have jolly well kept your life PRIVATE! but no, you chose to make yourself a public figure. You gave the public the right to scrutinise your life, and your past. This was a choice that you chose to take, and now that it has brought upon the consequences, you only have yourself to blame.
Let me give you a real life example. I used to have a classmate who was extremely beautiful. She was so pretty that most people in school would notice her. However, she kept a low profile and never did anything to attract attention. She only hung out with her close friends and mixed with her classmates. She never tried seeking popularity and instead, avoided it. She was nominated as Prom Queen but she turned it down. She was approached by Carrie Models and Phantom Agency but she declined. She was asked to participate in Miss Singapore Universe but she refused. She never wanted to be under the limelight. Later, we realised that she has not always been pretty. Yes, you are right. She had plastic surgery done, thus, the beauty. But she only did minor surgeries, if i'm not wrong just a low double eyelid and a slight nose bridge enhancement. But when the secret was out, did anybody care? No. When people heard, they took a few seconds to remember who she was and only said "oh, is it?" in response and never talked much about it. Why? Because she was always a low profile, private figure. People hardly know about her so what was there to talk about?
By attracting so much attention to yourself, Dawn, you made the mistake of allowing people to expose you. As a public figure, you have to answer to the public. Let me cite an example. Recently, Jay Chou had to apologise to the public for sticking his middle finger at the papparazi. He might not have been in the wrong, but why did he have to apologise? He had to apologise to the public because as a public figure, he set the wrong example to the public, he was ANSWERABLE to the public. He wasn't apologising to the papparazi, but to members of the public. That's the responsibility of being an artiste, Dawn. You have to learn to accept that.
A piece of advice to you. If you wish for this to tide over, your best choice is to remove yourself from the limelight. If you stop attracting the attention of the public and live a private life, no one would have the access into your deepest secrets. People will eventually stop talking about you. However, if you continue on with this or venture further, there will only be more people discussing about your darkest secrets. It might not even be confined into just Singapore anymore. It will spread to Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, whatever country you go to. When you become a public figure in those countries, you may not only see your 'before' and 'after' pictures in singapore, those unglamorous pictures might even make its way onto the covers of Taiwan's entertainment tabloid or Hong Kong papparazi news.
Even minor surgeries are being made as headlines by the unfeeling papparazi in those countries, what more major extensive surgery like yours? you are considered sheltered in Singapore. At least you haven't appeared on the newspapers and magazines yet. If you do not want a day like that to happen, don't give the reporters the need to bother about your secrets. How? Don't make yourself a concern of theirs. Be a private figure, living a private life with loved ones who can accept you. The papparazi in Taiwan, Hong Kong and China would be going "Dawn who?" when people reveal your secret to them. Because you would just be a normal Singaporean and they wouldn't care less about whether you had surgery done. This is your only way to protect yourself. If you still choose to be a public figure, in Singapore and in other countries, then you choose to subject yourself to people knowing your secrets on your own accord.
5) You cheated the feelings of your supporters, Tinsel Management, admirers and fans.
All those people who looked up to you, admired you, supported you, signed you up and gave you opportunities for your looks. You cheated them. Tinsel Management looked at your photos, felt you were beyond beautiful, decided to groom you. You had no special talents nor even the outgoing personality that an artiste should have. They felt that you are a "INTROVERT", "ORDINARY" and needed alot of "HONING AND POLISHING". meaning, it wasn't your personality, character or talents that attracted them, it was your "EXTRAORDINARY" face. Is it fair to them? You bought the "EXTRAORDINARY" face with money. By signing you up, Tinsel Management is sending out a message that says, "If you want to be a star, BUY your dreams with money. Go and sell your body or hope that you have rich parents, so that you would have money to BUY yourself a beautiful face. Better still, make yourself look like a DUTCH and THAI. It doesn't matter if you can't sing, act, dance or have any talents. It doesn't even matter if you are shy and have no personality. As long as you have money, go and change the face God and your parents have given you. Then, we would make your dreams come true and groom you into a star!"
Tinsel Management, I do not think it is a morally correct message to be sending out to the young minds out there. As an established and reputable agency, this is not a stand that you should take. Please reconsider your decision.
And Dawn, not only did you cheat Tinsel Management, you cheated those people who supported you so strongly. Do you know I have a 15- year old cousin. She is one of the reason I decided to write this letter to you. She was once a avid supporter of yours. She idolised you. She stood up for you. She defended you. When people accused you of having done plastic surgery, she chose to believe you. She even posted defending messages such as "Do not accuse Dawn. You are all just jealous. She looks so gorgeous because she is mixed Dutch and Thai like she said! Stop magligning her!" I believe I can still find such messages left by her and your other supporters on the internet. How do you feel about deceiving those people who supported you and believed in you? How do you feel about making them go all the way defending you and now, people are telling them to go EAT THEIR WORDS. Do you know that my cousin defended you when her friends insisted that you definitely had surgery done and now that the secret is out, they are all MOCKING her and LAUGHING at her for being so gullible and STUPID? she is the center of jokes among her friends now and is teased constantly about it. But what hurts her the most is not having to eat her words, but it's because she feels cheated by you. She trusted you, she supported you, she defended you, she stood up for you, she believed you. But now? she is proven to be wrong and yet you do not even have the courage to admit your mistake and to apologise to those who supported you. You know what the 15 year old girl said that struck a chord in me? She said, "I'm not angry with Dawn, I'm just disappointed with her..."
Dawn, this issue is no longer about yourself. You have pulled others down into the water along with you. Many people have been implicated and they may be hurt too. This people are friends of yours and those you care about. People like your best friends, Grace and Candice. Because of you, their faces are being analysed and scrutinised too. Their secrets may be revealed and publicised too. All because of you. You implicated them and they may be hurt because of you. If you want to protect the secrets of your friends, if you truly care about them, please do something about it. Admit your mistake, apologise for it, pull yourself out from the public eye. This is the least you can do for them. And your poor sister, she does not even have a choice of doing even the least bit of enhancement to her features in future because everyone will be watching her transformation from now on. People will be talking about your dear mother having possibly done surgery too since she willingly and generously allowed you to do it. And even your boyfriend. They will laugh and mock him for having a man-made, manufactured, carefully carved-out girlfriend.
Now, when people hear the name DAWN YEO, they will no longer see the image of that beautiful, big-eyed, slim-faced, sharp nose, lovely Dawn. The image that comes into everyone's mind is those 'Before' pictures that is circulating around. And trust me, they aren't very flattering pictures, not a very pretty image in our mind at all. Please look into your conscience, Dawn. Imagine if you are a man, one day, your wife comes clean with you and tells you, "Dear, I was actually a male before I met you. Please forgive me for not telling you." Imagine how the man would feel. Cheated, most definitely. That's what you did to us. I don't know if your boyfriend knows about your surgery and how you looked before. If he didn't know about it before this, I think you have much apologising to do to him because his feelings are those that you exploited most.
I may be angry at you for the above 5 wrongs that you did, but a part of me feels sorry for you too and I sincerely hope you would change for the better. A first step would be to admit what you previously denied, then apologise, then live a private life. Hopefully, the public would grant you your wish for privacy then, if you show that you have shown remorse and treasure the many gifts you are blessed with. Respect your own privacy (stop thrusting yourself under the public eye), and people would respect your privacy too.
And one last thing that I am extremely displeased with you about. Please do not say this: "If people want to continue to crucify me go ahead and crucify me." (quoted from your blog). If you insist on saying that you are being 'CRUCIFIED', just remember, Jesus was crucified because he did great things, you are 'crucified' because you did wrong things.
Please stop accusing your 'fellow humans' of being 'frightful' and making yourself sound so victimised, because the above 5 sins that you did fully shows that you are the one who has wronged. Repent and seek for forgiveness is what you should do. I will pray for you. Hopefully, this will tide over soon. May God bless you.
Love,
a fellow human.
[Ed: In case it wasn't clear enough, this letter was not written by me.]
Post ID: 113224835508351339
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Man's evolution from monkey a proven scientific fact? No, it's not - Nov 15, 2005
"I watched the show 'A Species Odyssey' on Channel NewsAsia on November 6 and was very concerned with the way the highly debatable theory of human evolution was presented as a fact.
While micro-evolution, ie the process of mutation and natural selection, can be observed in nature and is a proven fact, macro-evolution - the theory that all the organisms we see today resulted from the micro-evolution of simpler pre-existing organisms, which ultimately came from non-living matter - is not a proven fact.
It is in fact contradicted by huge gaps in the fossil records as well as other theoretical considerations (see www.answersingenesis.org).
Because of the evidence and theoretical considerations, many scientists have now repudiated the theory of macro-evolution (see, for example www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf), and the number is increasing despite the 'persecutions' by scientific establishments wishing to maintian their unwarranted naturalistic philosophy. (See Dr Jonathan Well's The Icons of Evolution, chapter 12).
We must note carefully that micro-evolution does not necessarily imply macro-evolution. Micro-evolution only implies that given enough time, living things may change as they adapt to the environment. For example, given enough time, apes may change.
But micro-evolution does not necessarily imply that all the living organisms that we see today originates from pre-existing organisms. For example, to say that apes may change given enough time does not necessarily imply that man did come from apes. Above all, micro-evolution does not explain how the RNA/DNA comes about in the first place. (See www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/TJ/docs/tjv10n3_origin_life.pdf).
Paleontologists often construct the supposed intermediates between monkeys and humans with much imagination and subjectivity which resemble myth-writing. (See The Icons of Evolution, chapter 11). Many such constructions have in fact been proven false (eg the Piltdown man which deceived scientists from early 1900s to 1953), while the remaining ones are highly debatable (see www.answersingenesis.org).
People should not be given the idea that evolution from monkey to man is a proven fact of science when it is not and the media should not just present one side of the story without presenting the evidence and theoretical considerations that contradict it.
While many books showing the fallacy of macro-evolution can now be found in bookshops and the National Library in Singapore (eg Dr Michael Denton's Evolution, a theory in crisis, Dr Michael Behe's Darwin's Black box), documentaries showing the fallacy of macro-evolution should also be shown on TV to let the public know the truth about our origin.
Andrew Loke Ter Ern (Dr)"
***
The George Bush Paradox: Intelligent Design Vs. Avian Bird Flu
"It is not just a simple change for a virus to have a different transmission vector – changing from blood born pathogen to airborne pathogen. To make that kind of a change the virus itself must change form or retain a resilience to survive in an environment that is not its native environment. That the very mutation of an avian flu to a flu that is a human flu would be not only microevolution (a small change to a species), but macroevolution – as a flu that primarily lives and is transferred by humans would to me be considered a different species of flu?...
It seems quite clear to me that for people to manage to be afraid of a flu epidemic and at the same time deny microevolution and macroevolution is foolish. It has every appearance of someone telling people ‘I don’t believe lightning strikes the closest ground point’ but not offering to prove it by standing next to a lightning rod on the top of a building during a thunderstorm...
To be ethically consistent a strict biblical believer must not believe that new versions of the flu can evolve and take devastating tolls on human life. A believer in Intelligent Design must believe that the evolution of new diseases is done on purpose by the “creator”. This creator, I suspect is not a very nice entity.
If the Intelligent Designer creator – be it alien, god or extra-dimensional creature were to present itself to a court after the flu epidemic of 1918 and 1919 and say ‘I confess to creating this flu that has killed millions of people and harmed many millions of other people.’ I strongly suspect that prosecution for murder would be in order."
[Addendum: Then, turning to his antagonist with a smiling insolence, he begged to know, was it through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent from a monkey? On this Mr Huxley slowly and deliberately arose. A slight tall figure stern and pale, very quiet and very grave, he stood before us, and spoke those tremendous words - words which no one seems sure of now, nor I think, could remember just after they were spoken, for their meaning took away our breath, though it left us in no doubt as to what it was. He was not ashamed to have a monkey for his ancestor; but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used great gifts to obscure the truth.
--Wilberforce and Huxley: A Legendary Encounter
(as quoted by Yew Jin)]
"I watched the show 'A Species Odyssey' on Channel NewsAsia on November 6 and was very concerned with the way the highly debatable theory of human evolution was presented as a fact.
While micro-evolution, ie the process of mutation and natural selection, can be observed in nature and is a proven fact, macro-evolution - the theory that all the organisms we see today resulted from the micro-evolution of simpler pre-existing organisms, which ultimately came from non-living matter - is not a proven fact.
It is in fact contradicted by huge gaps in the fossil records as well as other theoretical considerations (see www.answersingenesis.org).
Because of the evidence and theoretical considerations, many scientists have now repudiated the theory of macro-evolution (see, for example www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf), and the number is increasing despite the 'persecutions' by scientific establishments wishing to maintian their unwarranted naturalistic philosophy. (See Dr Jonathan Well's The Icons of Evolution, chapter 12).
We must note carefully that micro-evolution does not necessarily imply macro-evolution. Micro-evolution only implies that given enough time, living things may change as they adapt to the environment. For example, given enough time, apes may change.
But micro-evolution does not necessarily imply that all the living organisms that we see today originates from pre-existing organisms. For example, to say that apes may change given enough time does not necessarily imply that man did come from apes. Above all, micro-evolution does not explain how the RNA/DNA comes about in the first place. (See www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/TJ/docs/tjv10n3_origin_life.pdf).
Paleontologists often construct the supposed intermediates between monkeys and humans with much imagination and subjectivity which resemble myth-writing. (See The Icons of Evolution, chapter 11). Many such constructions have in fact been proven false (eg the Piltdown man which deceived scientists from early 1900s to 1953), while the remaining ones are highly debatable (see www.answersingenesis.org).
People should not be given the idea that evolution from monkey to man is a proven fact of science when it is not and the media should not just present one side of the story without presenting the evidence and theoretical considerations that contradict it.
While many books showing the fallacy of macro-evolution can now be found in bookshops and the National Library in Singapore (eg Dr Michael Denton's Evolution, a theory in crisis, Dr Michael Behe's Darwin's Black box), documentaries showing the fallacy of macro-evolution should also be shown on TV to let the public know the truth about our origin.
Andrew Loke Ter Ern (Dr)"
***
The George Bush Paradox: Intelligent Design Vs. Avian Bird Flu
"It is not just a simple change for a virus to have a different transmission vector – changing from blood born pathogen to airborne pathogen. To make that kind of a change the virus itself must change form or retain a resilience to survive in an environment that is not its native environment. That the very mutation of an avian flu to a flu that is a human flu would be not only microevolution (a small change to a species), but macroevolution – as a flu that primarily lives and is transferred by humans would to me be considered a different species of flu?...
It seems quite clear to me that for people to manage to be afraid of a flu epidemic and at the same time deny microevolution and macroevolution is foolish. It has every appearance of someone telling people ‘I don’t believe lightning strikes the closest ground point’ but not offering to prove it by standing next to a lightning rod on the top of a building during a thunderstorm...
To be ethically consistent a strict biblical believer must not believe that new versions of the flu can evolve and take devastating tolls on human life. A believer in Intelligent Design must believe that the evolution of new diseases is done on purpose by the “creator”. This creator, I suspect is not a very nice entity.
If the Intelligent Designer creator – be it alien, god or extra-dimensional creature were to present itself to a court after the flu epidemic of 1918 and 1919 and say ‘I confess to creating this flu that has killed millions of people and harmed many millions of other people.’ I strongly suspect that prosecution for murder would be in order."
[Addendum: Then, turning to his antagonist with a smiling insolence, he begged to know, was it through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent from a monkey? On this Mr Huxley slowly and deliberately arose. A slight tall figure stern and pale, very quiet and very grave, he stood before us, and spoke those tremendous words - words which no one seems sure of now, nor I think, could remember just after they were spoken, for their meaning took away our breath, though it left us in no doubt as to what it was. He was not ashamed to have a monkey for his ancestor; but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used great gifts to obscure the truth.
--Wilberforce and Huxley: A Legendary Encounter
(as quoted by Yew Jin)]
Post ID: 113212064455987349
Monday, November 14, 2005
In view of my looming exams, and seeing as how I still want to make it to the "make fun of me" list this semester, I will once again be on sabbatical until their end (26th November, thereabouts), barring events of singular magnitude (eg end of the world, NUS blowing up et alia)
Post ID: 113193806748287565
Sunday, November 13, 2005
I'm getting sick of the whole Dawn Yeo thing, but a source informs me (more convincingly than the rest):
"no singaporean at USC has seen dawn yeo
her name is not on the directory--i checked there
PLUS if she really got accepted by USC
her name would have appeared when the Singaporean Students' Association went to the registration to collect names for orientation
the SSA hosts the orientation in summer in singapore for singaporeans before school starts....."
People in xialanxue's comments box say Marymount Community College, but I have no way of verifying that, so.
"no singaporean at USC has seen dawn yeo
her name is not on the directory--i checked there
PLUS if she really got accepted by USC
her name would have appeared when the Singaporean Students' Association went to the registration to collect names for orientation
the SSA hosts the orientation in summer in singapore for singaporeans before school starts....."
People in xialanxue's comments box say Marymount Community College, but I have no way of verifying that, so.
Post ID: 113185820773591598
Saturday, November 12, 2005
"In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite." - Paul Dirac
***
Recidivism patterns in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments [RISE]
Abstract: "This is the final report on a project partially funded by the Criminology Research Council. The original title of the project, in the name of John Braithwaite and Lawrence W. Sherman, was "Reintegrative shaming of violence, drink driving and property crime : a randomised controlled trial". This report describes findings on the recidivism behaviour of offenders involved in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments, which compared the effects of standard court processing with the effects of a diversionary conference for four kinds of cases: drink driving at any age; juvenile property offending with personal victims; juvenile shoplifting offences detected by store security officers; and youth violent crimes. Across the four experiments that make up the Reintegrative Shaming Experiments project (RISE), very different results have emerged for the different offence categories. In the youth violence experiment, those offenders who were assigned to conference subsequently offended at substantially lower levels-38 fewer offences per year per 100 offenders-than did the offenders assigned to court. This was not true for any of the other experiments. For drink-driving offenders, a very small increase in detected reoffending was found for the conferenced offenders relative to court-about four offences per offender per year per 100 offenders. The methodological conclusion of this five-year project is that multiple randomised trials are advisable for testing a new method of justice. The design of RISE anticipated the possibility of detecting different effects for different types of offences. That still remains the most plausible account of the differences reported, as opposed to differences by type of offender background. Further research should continue to break out different offence types for testing, rather than lumping diverse offence types together. The substantive conclusion of RISE is that restorative justice can work, and can even reduce crime by violent offenders. But there is no guarantee that it will work for all offence types. Caution and more research are needed before rapid expansion of any new approach to treating crime. Less caution is needed, however, in testing restorative justice on more serious types of violent offences. The findings in this report provide firm ground for repeating the violence experiment in many other venues and with more refined types of violent offences, including robbery, assault and grievous bodily harm."
In other words: Instead of sending people to court (presuming leading to jail and/or fines), they tried a diversionary conference instead ("a meeting between an offender, the victim, their families, other supporters and the police"). In the case of youth violence, there was a significantly lower risk of the offenders commiting the same crime again.
***
"More than one in five adults have used a vibrator (22%) and they are more popular
with women than men - 26% compared to 19%" - Durex Global Sex Survey 2005. Statistical issues aside, I'm wondering what the hell men do with vibrators. I mean, the descriptions of these things make you want to be female but, erm, what do they do with them...
Rub My Duckie - "Thinking of ways to start making bathtime more fun? Need a tub buddy who knows just how you like it? Have we got the ducky for you! This cute little ducky isn't as innocent as he would first appear. To the untrained eye, this ducky is nothing more than a standard bath-time, splash-time, bubble bath buddy, but give him a squeeze and he'll show you what he can really do!"
forget-me-not panties : with sensatech technology - "forget-me-not panties will help protect the women in your life! These panties will monitor the location of your daughter, wife or girlfriend 24 hours a day, and can even monitor their heart rate and body temperature. Based on pioneering research developed by the U.S. military at DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), we have brought this revolutionary technology, previously only available to the military, to you!"
But who will protect the women in your life from you...?
***
Recidivism patterns in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments [RISE]
Abstract: "This is the final report on a project partially funded by the Criminology Research Council. The original title of the project, in the name of John Braithwaite and Lawrence W. Sherman, was "Reintegrative shaming of violence, drink driving and property crime : a randomised controlled trial". This report describes findings on the recidivism behaviour of offenders involved in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments, which compared the effects of standard court processing with the effects of a diversionary conference for four kinds of cases: drink driving at any age; juvenile property offending with personal victims; juvenile shoplifting offences detected by store security officers; and youth violent crimes. Across the four experiments that make up the Reintegrative Shaming Experiments project (RISE), very different results have emerged for the different offence categories. In the youth violence experiment, those offenders who were assigned to conference subsequently offended at substantially lower levels-38 fewer offences per year per 100 offenders-than did the offenders assigned to court. This was not true for any of the other experiments. For drink-driving offenders, a very small increase in detected reoffending was found for the conferenced offenders relative to court-about four offences per offender per year per 100 offenders. The methodological conclusion of this five-year project is that multiple randomised trials are advisable for testing a new method of justice. The design of RISE anticipated the possibility of detecting different effects for different types of offences. That still remains the most plausible account of the differences reported, as opposed to differences by type of offender background. Further research should continue to break out different offence types for testing, rather than lumping diverse offence types together. The substantive conclusion of RISE is that restorative justice can work, and can even reduce crime by violent offenders. But there is no guarantee that it will work for all offence types. Caution and more research are needed before rapid expansion of any new approach to treating crime. Less caution is needed, however, in testing restorative justice on more serious types of violent offences. The findings in this report provide firm ground for repeating the violence experiment in many other venues and with more refined types of violent offences, including robbery, assault and grievous bodily harm."
In other words: Instead of sending people to court (presuming leading to jail and/or fines), they tried a diversionary conference instead ("a meeting between an offender, the victim, their families, other supporters and the police"). In the case of youth violence, there was a significantly lower risk of the offenders commiting the same crime again.
***
"More than one in five adults have used a vibrator (22%) and they are more popular
with women than men - 26% compared to 19%" - Durex Global Sex Survey 2005. Statistical issues aside, I'm wondering what the hell men do with vibrators. I mean, the descriptions of these things make you want to be female but, erm, what do they do with them...
Rub My Duckie - "Thinking of ways to start making bathtime more fun? Need a tub buddy who knows just how you like it? Have we got the ducky for you! This cute little ducky isn't as innocent as he would first appear. To the untrained eye, this ducky is nothing more than a standard bath-time, splash-time, bubble bath buddy, but give him a squeeze and he'll show you what he can really do!"
forget-me-not panties : with sensatech technology - "forget-me-not panties will help protect the women in your life! These panties will monitor the location of your daughter, wife or girlfriend 24 hours a day, and can even monitor their heart rate and body temperature. Based on pioneering research developed by the U.S. military at DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), we have brought this revolutionary technology, previously only available to the military, to you!"
But who will protect the women in your life from you...?
Post ID: 113181110524972387
I recently heard another good Law story.
Apparently the Law Club booked all the classrooms in Law faculty for the duration of Reading Week for the benefit of Law students.
Ahh, the advantages of being in a small faculty! I can't imagine any other faculty doing this for their students.
Actually the Engineering club should do this, then the Engin students won't have to invade every nook and cranny of the school, and spoilt the market for all the rest of us (See "SNAILS OFFENCES ACT" - I was tempted to do up something regarding the SLUGS, but that'd be too lame, so).
Engineering students - they come to Arts (everywhere in the school actually), take up space in our library (and probably our classrooms too), crowd us out of the canteen, take our foolscap paper, Milo and biscuits (The last academic year's Exam Teas had free Arts Club foolscap paper, biscuits and Milo, but there's no more free paper and Milo this year. Why ah?), take our women...
***
Lyrics to the full and presumably uncorrupted version of the song my BMT platoon used to sing:
surangani surangani
suraganina malu kanava
malu malu malu
suranganina malu
suranganina malu kanava
once a papa and a mama under mango tree.
den the papa asked the mama would u marry me
then the mama told the papa u are so ugly
den the papa told the mama pundeh minachi.
***
Feedback via email: please add "reading your blog" to your list of how we waste time..
A source informs me: "you know, under the helplines section of our [Ed: Raffles Guys' School] latest student's handbook, the helpline you call if you have 'homosexuality issues' is Choices (Church of Our Saviour)."
***
Someone: i'm not conducting a logical argument
Me: so you're conducting an illogical one? ;)
Someone: that was underhand of u...:D
that's why i never was a debater
it takes a certain type of annoying personality to be a proficient debater
one who can irritate
Apparently the Law Club booked all the classrooms in Law faculty for the duration of Reading Week for the benefit of Law students.
Ahh, the advantages of being in a small faculty! I can't imagine any other faculty doing this for their students.
Actually the Engineering club should do this, then the Engin students won't have to invade every nook and cranny of the school, and spoilt the market for all the rest of us (See "SNAILS OFFENCES ACT" - I was tempted to do up something regarding the SLUGS, but that'd be too lame, so).
Engineering students - they come to Arts (everywhere in the school actually), take up space in our library (and probably our classrooms too), crowd us out of the canteen, take our foolscap paper, Milo and biscuits (The last academic year's Exam Teas had free Arts Club foolscap paper, biscuits and Milo, but there's no more free paper and Milo this year. Why ah?), take our women...
***
Lyrics to the full and presumably uncorrupted version of the song my BMT platoon used to sing:
surangani surangani
suraganina malu kanava
malu malu malu
suranganina malu
suranganina malu kanava
once a papa and a mama under mango tree.
den the papa asked the mama would u marry me
then the mama told the papa u are so ugly
den the papa told the mama pundeh minachi.
***
Feedback via email: please add "reading your blog" to your list of how we waste time..
A source informs me: "you know, under the helplines section of our [Ed: Raffles Guys' School] latest student's handbook, the helpline you call if you have 'homosexuality issues' is Choices (Church of Our Saviour)."
***
Someone: i'm not conducting a logical argument
Me: so you're conducting an illogical one? ;)
Someone: that was underhand of u...:D
that's why i never was a debater
it takes a certain type of annoying personality to be a proficient debater
one who can irritate
Post ID: 113180511876800587
I grew tired of adding addenda to the Dawn Yeo/Yang expose, so here's some related/peripherally related material.
***
It seems some don't get my motives for doing the expose, so in explicit form, off the top of my mind, here they are:
1) She lied about having surgery, especially when it was so major.
"I will neither confirm or deny the allegations" is very different from "I did not have sex with that woman!" or indeed bringing up the point and dismissing it with faux resignation.
2) Her constant refutations of having gone under the knife.
"Her good looks have inspired much jealousy... 'People also accuse me of having plastic surgery, but what can I do?' she shrugged helplessly."
"U wanna gossip abt me havin surgery, fine i can't really stop u can i? but this isn't just gossip now, it's a very hurtful n wrongful ACCUSATION which is way out of line."
3) Her being indignant about it.
"another thing, sorry to burst your bubble but lemme be helpful n share a makeup secret: u can use brown eyeshadow to accentuate the crease of your eyelid making it look deeper. when u look down, it’ll obviously look like there’s a slight line. take a look at the angelina jolie pic i had, don’t her eyes look even more “cut”? haha cmon its just simple makeup sheesh!"
4) Her slamming, allegedly both in forum threads and in real life, of people who go for such surgery.
***
mkmk in the comments thread (where much more abounds):
"Plastic Surgery 101
Being a fan of "Nip/Tuck"...
Exhibit 1: photo 11/40, subject's friendster page, the pic with the "supreme" cap.
look under the nose, yep, that's rhinoplasty for you!"
Sheena: "Dearest all who said Agagooga was jealous, may I ask WHY? I mean, he's a GUY! Why the heck should he be jealous of a girl's looks?"
More photos of Dawn from JC: http://photobucket.com/albums/c258/dawnyeomemories/
I love the ad hominem attacks flowing in all directions (though mostly towards the clapbangkiss detractors).
Someone was bored/free enough to dig up even more pictures (some which I don't have) and set up a new Friendster account for her: "About Me:Photos of Dawn Yeo/Yang at varying stages of plastic surgery!"
For some reason most of the females I mention Woffles Wu to know who he is. Wth. I only heard of him on Wednesday night.
***
My favourite misanthrope: I can't believe people are getting so worked up about this dawn yeo thing. nobody cares what you post about politics and religion, but one bit of gossip draws them all in.
yh (in comments): usual socio-political posts, no comment
post on a surgically altered pretty face, 85 comments
there is hope for singapore
***
A smattering of reactions from the blogosphere:
Xialanxue has an open letter to her and arranged the pictures in chronological order. One comment there: "funny though! both people "accusing" her of plastic surgery are not "jealous girls" like dawn always says her accusors are. one is a heterosexual male and one is a homosexual female!" Glad to see I've convinced someone!
Dawning of teh Truth - Dawn has inspired an eponymous blog about plastic surgery. The first post talks about nose jobs, and the difference between Asian and Caucasian noses. The second measures alar/eye/dorsum ratios and shows that they fell significantly (20% post-surgery), which proves "she got an Alar Cartilage Resection procedure done".
[Addendum: Fanfiction featuring me and Dawn Yeo from suspiciousbastard.
MSNBC's Clicked picks up on it. (Hat tip to Mooiness!)]
"Dawn Yang" (sans quotes) is, as of12:39am 1:19am 3:28am 3:17pm on 12th November, the 9th 5th 3rd top search on Technorati. NKF proportions!
***
It seems some don't get my motives for doing the expose, so in explicit form, off the top of my mind, here they are:
1) She lied about having surgery, especially when it was so major.
"I will neither confirm or deny the allegations" is very different from "I did not have sex with that woman!" or indeed bringing up the point and dismissing it with faux resignation.
2) Her constant refutations of having gone under the knife.
"Her good looks have inspired much jealousy... 'People also accuse me of having plastic surgery, but what can I do?' she shrugged helplessly."
"U wanna gossip abt me havin surgery, fine i can't really stop u can i? but this isn't just gossip now, it's a very hurtful n wrongful ACCUSATION which is way out of line."
3) Her being indignant about it.
"another thing, sorry to burst your bubble but lemme be helpful n share a makeup secret: u can use brown eyeshadow to accentuate the crease of your eyelid making it look deeper. when u look down, it’ll obviously look like there’s a slight line. take a look at the angelina jolie pic i had, don’t her eyes look even more “cut”? haha cmon its just simple makeup sheesh!"
4) Her slamming, allegedly both in forum threads and in real life, of people who go for such surgery.
***
mkmk in the comments thread (where much more abounds):
"Plastic Surgery 101
Being a fan of "Nip/Tuck"...
Exhibit 1: photo 11/40, subject's friendster page, the pic with the "supreme" cap.
look under the nose, yep, that's rhinoplasty for you!"
Sheena: "Dearest all who said Agagooga was jealous, may I ask WHY? I mean, he's a GUY! Why the heck should he be jealous of a girl's looks?"
More photos of Dawn from JC: http://photobucket.com/albums/c258/dawnyeomemories/
I love the ad hominem attacks flowing in all directions (though mostly towards the clapbangkiss detractors).
Someone was bored/free enough to dig up even more pictures (some which I don't have) and set up a new Friendster account for her: "About Me:Photos of Dawn Yeo/Yang at varying stages of plastic surgery!"
For some reason most of the females I mention Woffles Wu to know who he is. Wth. I only heard of him on Wednesday night.
***
My favourite misanthrope: I can't believe people are getting so worked up about this dawn yeo thing. nobody cares what you post about politics and religion, but one bit of gossip draws them all in.
yh (in comments): usual socio-political posts, no comment
post on a surgically altered pretty face, 85 comments
there is hope for singapore
***
A smattering of reactions from the blogosphere:
Xialanxue has an open letter to her and arranged the pictures in chronological order. One comment there: "funny though! both people "accusing" her of plastic surgery are not "jealous girls" like dawn always says her accusors are. one is a heterosexual male and one is a homosexual female!" Glad to see I've convinced someone!
Dawning of teh Truth - Dawn has inspired an eponymous blog about plastic surgery. The first post talks about nose jobs, and the difference between Asian and Caucasian noses. The second measures alar/eye/dorsum ratios and shows that they fell significantly (20% post-surgery), which proves "she got an Alar Cartilage Resection procedure done".
[Addendum: Fanfiction featuring me and Dawn Yeo from suspiciousbastard.
MSNBC's Clicked picks up on it. (Hat tip to Mooiness!)]
"Dawn Yang" (sans quotes) is, as of
Post ID: 113169333825141157
A conversation with Johnny Malkavian on why going for plastic surgery itself is wrong and ending with my explanation of why free will is an illusion:
Someone: i prefer natural though. it means so much more when one puts effort into looking good
Me: ...
what about makeup? slim wraps?
you think plastic surgery is effortless?
Someone: think going to gym vs liposuction
makeup ?
Me: that's simplistic
how about creatin?
what if you're naturally born with low metabolism and work out
vs naturally born with a high metabolism and don't
Someone: look at it this way, there's a difference between enhancement and outright alteration
it's like the difference between studying effectively for an exam, and cheating.
Me: what about the student who gets tutors
and the one who doesn't
the one who comes from a rich home
and the one living in a one room flat
the one born smart
and the one born stupid
hell even our dilligence levels are not determined by us
free will is largely or totally a sham
Someone: for someone who doesn't believe in god, that's an interesting view you have on freewill
Me: au contraire
those who believe in the christian god believe in free will more
Someone: why is there no freewill then ?
or why is it a sham?
Me: we are born with some of our mental/personality characteristics which determine our dispositions, outlook on life, temperatment et al.
and acquire others later as we grow from life experience and social conditioning
do we have any control over these? no.
even if we did, the control we had would be a function of the previously-acquired mental/personality characteristics. ie If you're born with an angry streak you'll be less likely to try to control your anger
the only way to posit free will in here is to imagine a homunculus (little man) living in your brain - controlling you and deciding what you'll do - ie Free will
Someone: i thought a homunculus was a wizard's imps
lonewolf to thank i think
Me: however there are 2 issues here:
1) how do we know of the existence of this little man. or at best, a part of our brain immune to outside influences and magically making decisions independently. you may even want to posit a soul - but we can't detect/measure/find/see it, as far as we know it's a logical abstraction which we have formulated to, among other things, solve the problem of free will and which does not exist in reality
2) even if this homunculus/independent component of our brains/soul exists, how does it make its decisions? if it was made that way then this is the same as genetic determinism - you are your genes, or what you're born with. so we have no free will. or perhaps we can imagine that controlling this homunculus is another one inside. so you get matryoshka (those russian dolls - 1 inside another), not actually solving the problem
so of course there're problems here
criminals don't mean to commit crimes
they had bad childhoods, fell into bad company etc
can we really blame them?
in a sense we don't, but if we don't punish them society will fall apart so too pad.
Someone: i prefer natural though. it means so much more when one puts effort into looking good
Me: ...
what about makeup? slim wraps?
you think plastic surgery is effortless?
Someone: think going to gym vs liposuction
makeup ?
Me: that's simplistic
how about creatin?
what if you're naturally born with low metabolism and work out
vs naturally born with a high metabolism and don't
Someone: look at it this way, there's a difference between enhancement and outright alteration
it's like the difference between studying effectively for an exam, and cheating.
Me: what about the student who gets tutors
and the one who doesn't
the one who comes from a rich home
and the one living in a one room flat
the one born smart
and the one born stupid
hell even our dilligence levels are not determined by us
free will is largely or totally a sham
Someone: for someone who doesn't believe in god, that's an interesting view you have on freewill
Me: au contraire
those who believe in the christian god believe in free will more
Someone: why is there no freewill then ?
or why is it a sham?
Me: we are born with some of our mental/personality characteristics which determine our dispositions, outlook on life, temperatment et al.
and acquire others later as we grow from life experience and social conditioning
do we have any control over these? no.
even if we did, the control we had would be a function of the previously-acquired mental/personality characteristics. ie If you're born with an angry streak you'll be less likely to try to control your anger
the only way to posit free will in here is to imagine a homunculus (little man) living in your brain - controlling you and deciding what you'll do - ie Free will
Someone: i thought a homunculus was a wizard's imps
lonewolf to thank i think
Me: however there are 2 issues here:
1) how do we know of the existence of this little man. or at best, a part of our brain immune to outside influences and magically making decisions independently. you may even want to posit a soul - but we can't detect/measure/find/see it, as far as we know it's a logical abstraction which we have formulated to, among other things, solve the problem of free will and which does not exist in reality
2) even if this homunculus/independent component of our brains/soul exists, how does it make its decisions? if it was made that way then this is the same as genetic determinism - you are your genes, or what you're born with. so we have no free will. or perhaps we can imagine that controlling this homunculus is another one inside. so you get matryoshka (those russian dolls - 1 inside another), not actually solving the problem
so of course there're problems here
criminals don't mean to commit crimes
they had bad childhoods, fell into bad company etc
can we really blame them?
in a sense we don't, but if we don't punish them society will fall apart so too pad.
Post ID: 113172494889676845
Any reasonable man would agree that Dawn has indeed undergone plastic surgery.
Of course, The Associate aka He Who Must Not be Named aka mindgame aka nw.t., having nothing better to do and delighting in pissing me off, decided to engage in pointless, postmodernist and solipsistic arguments to try to drag me into epistemological nihilism.
When I said any reasonable man would agree that she had undergone surgery, he claimed you needed the opinion of an expert on plastic surgery. Which is plainly ridiculous - if almost everyone cannot recognise her, and most think the pictures are of 2 different people; you do not need a doctor or even a paramedic to certify that someone whose head has been separated from his body and is currently 100 metres away is definitely dead. Exasperated, I pointed out that the only alternative was that she woke up one day and found that she had a new face, a possibility which he did not rule out.
And then he disputed my use of the term "reasonable man", claiming that the "reasonable man" in Germany in the 1940s would have agreed that Jews should be exterminated because they were scum. To say nothing of the assumption that most Germans in the 1940s were anti-Semitic, this line of logic would mean that reasonable men do not exist since no one is infallible, and that nothing can be said or proven since everything is, ultimately, an opinion. Oh, and courts of law would also collapse and we would revert to a state of pseudo-anarchy.
(In a murder trial, the defense attorney was cross-examining the coroner:
Attorney: Before you signed the death certificate, had you taken the pulse?
Coroner: No.
Attorney: Did you listen to the heart?
Coroner: No.
Attorney: Did you check for breathing?
Coroner: No.
Attorney: So, when you signed the death certificate, you weren't sure the man was dead, were you?
Coroner: Well, let me put it this way. The man's brain was sitting in a jar on my desk. But I guess it's possible he could be out there practising law somewhere.)
In the end I got so fed up I put down on him.
With his sort of logic, even the fact of the world's being round would be impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt (let alone all doubt), since a reasonable man might disagree that we cannot prove that we are not brains floating in vats, and thus cannot know anything (except perhaps the fact of our existence). Hell, I'm not even sure that he exists, so I think I shouldn't talk to him for a week, especially since this is the umpteenth time he has wasted my time and raised my hackles with this bullshit.
Of course, The Associate aka He Who Must Not be Named aka mindgame aka nw.t., having nothing better to do and delighting in pissing me off, decided to engage in pointless, postmodernist and solipsistic arguments to try to drag me into epistemological nihilism.
When I said any reasonable man would agree that she had undergone surgery, he claimed you needed the opinion of an expert on plastic surgery. Which is plainly ridiculous - if almost everyone cannot recognise her, and most think the pictures are of 2 different people; you do not need a doctor or even a paramedic to certify that someone whose head has been separated from his body and is currently 100 metres away is definitely dead. Exasperated, I pointed out that the only alternative was that she woke up one day and found that she had a new face, a possibility which he did not rule out.
And then he disputed my use of the term "reasonable man", claiming that the "reasonable man" in Germany in the 1940s would have agreed that Jews should be exterminated because they were scum. To say nothing of the assumption that most Germans in the 1940s were anti-Semitic, this line of logic would mean that reasonable men do not exist since no one is infallible, and that nothing can be said or proven since everything is, ultimately, an opinion. Oh, and courts of law would also collapse and we would revert to a state of pseudo-anarchy.
(In a murder trial, the defense attorney was cross-examining the coroner:
Attorney: Before you signed the death certificate, had you taken the pulse?
Coroner: No.
Attorney: Did you listen to the heart?
Coroner: No.
Attorney: Did you check for breathing?
Coroner: No.
Attorney: So, when you signed the death certificate, you weren't sure the man was dead, were you?
Coroner: Well, let me put it this way. The man's brain was sitting in a jar on my desk. But I guess it's possible he could be out there practising law somewhere.)
In the end I got so fed up I put down on him.
With his sort of logic, even the fact of the world's being round would be impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt (let alone all doubt), since a reasonable man might disagree that we cannot prove that we are not brains floating in vats, and thus cannot know anything (except perhaps the fact of our existence). Hell, I'm not even sure that he exists, so I think I shouldn't talk to him for a week, especially since this is the umpteenth time he has wasted my time and raised my hackles with this bullshit.
Post ID: 113172486631486491
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Rosa Parks T-Shirt Project
INFORMATION SHEET
HOW IT ALL STARTED
There was a recent incident in which Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white man. This issue sparked off a huge debate amongst Americans, not to mention provoked much interest in the civil rights of Blacks, the subsequent acts taken by the State government, and expressing the views of Alabamans in general.
We are not embarking on this project to judge the act in any way; rather we feel that it brought a very important issue – the civil rights of Blacks – to prominence. Thus we were inspired to spontaneously start this initiative in an effort to promote active participation in citizenship, which we believe would eventually lead to less racism in society.
OUR BELIEFS
o The capacity to which our society can become more tolerant is immeasurable
o Increased communication between Whites and Blacks is essential for society to improve and progress as a whole, and lead to a more harmonious and united society
o Citizens should bear in mind the responsibility of keeping to legal boundaries in going about their daily lives
o Sensitivity to people of other races is essential to the concept of racial harmony
OUR AIMS FOR THIS PROJECT
o To push for the concept of less racial discrimination in society where Whites and Blacks can interact on a level platform, bearing in mind the need to adhere to the segregation laws and Jim Crow laws (which prevent Blacks from voting) while doing so.
o Galvanize the Blacks of today to rise up from their apathy and despair they are stereotyped as having and take an active role in peacefully campaigning for desegregation (even if any laws might exist restricting peaceful assembly and demonstration), as well as participate actively in the reforming of our society
o To ultimately help create a more racially-cohesive, united society where everyone has a part to play in active citizenship
THE CONTEXT OF “ROSA PARKS” IN OUR PROJECT
We would like to remind the public that even though Rosa Parks has become our mascot and symbol for the project, we are in no way attempting to judge or condone the Rosa Parks incident. Rather, we are using the accidental fame of Rosa Parks to spark interest in our project; they also serve as a reminder that legal boundaries are important and should be adhered to even while fighting racism and racial discrimination.
[Ed: If you don't get it, read the post below.
If you still don't get it, consider:
- Why would someone make a Rosa Parks T-shirt in the 21st century?
- Why would the T-shirt makers have Singaporean-style caveats about obeying the law?
- Why does it refer to the incident as "recent"?]
INFORMATION SHEET
HOW IT ALL STARTED
There was a recent incident in which Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white man. This issue sparked off a huge debate amongst Americans, not to mention provoked much interest in the civil rights of Blacks, the subsequent acts taken by the State government, and expressing the views of Alabamans in general.
We are not embarking on this project to judge the act in any way; rather we feel that it brought a very important issue – the civil rights of Blacks – to prominence. Thus we were inspired to spontaneously start this initiative in an effort to promote active participation in citizenship, which we believe would eventually lead to less racism in society.
OUR BELIEFS
o The capacity to which our society can become more tolerant is immeasurable
o Increased communication between Whites and Blacks is essential for society to improve and progress as a whole, and lead to a more harmonious and united society
o Citizens should bear in mind the responsibility of keeping to legal boundaries in going about their daily lives
o Sensitivity to people of other races is essential to the concept of racial harmony
OUR AIMS FOR THIS PROJECT
o To push for the concept of less racial discrimination in society where Whites and Blacks can interact on a level platform, bearing in mind the need to adhere to the segregation laws and Jim Crow laws (which prevent Blacks from voting) while doing so.
o Galvanize the Blacks of today to rise up from their apathy and despair they are stereotyped as having and take an active role in peacefully campaigning for desegregation (even if any laws might exist restricting peaceful assembly and demonstration), as well as participate actively in the reforming of our society
o To ultimately help create a more racially-cohesive, united society where everyone has a part to play in active citizenship
THE CONTEXT OF “ROSA PARKS” IN OUR PROJECT
We would like to remind the public that even though Rosa Parks has become our mascot and symbol for the project, we are in no way attempting to judge or condone the Rosa Parks incident. Rather, we are using the accidental fame of Rosa Parks to spark interest in our project; they also serve as a reminder that legal boundaries are important and should be adhered to even while fighting racism and racial discrimination.
[Ed: If you don't get it, read the post below.
If you still don't get it, consider:
- Why would someone make a Rosa Parks T-shirt in the 21st century?
- Why would the T-shirt makers have Singaporean-style caveats about obeying the law?
- Why does it refer to the incident as "recent"?]
Post ID: 113155477227246482
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
The following made its way into my mailbox. Somehow I'm not surprised that it's Raffles Guys behind this (and GEPs too).
Chinese Newspaper article
T-Shirt logo
I tried to do a rough translation of the article, for people like me who can't understand Chinese, but it was unfortunately beyond me. Fortunately, there is a helpful information sheet below.
Attached document:
INFORMATION SHEET
A project brought to you by class 415 of Raffles Girls School (Secondary)
HOW IT ALL STARTED
There was a recent incident in which eight white elephants made out of cardboard were placed at the Buangkok MRT station on the North-East Line by some residents to convey their views on how the station is still as yet closed. This issue sparked off a huge debate amongst Singaporeans, not to mention provoked much interest in the closure of the station, the subsequent acts taken by the government, and expressing the views of Singaporeans in general.
Our class has always taken a strong interest in current affairs and this in particular caught our attention. We are not embarking on this project to judge the act in any way; rather we feel that it brought a very important issue – effective, reasonable ways of airing one’s views – to prominence. Thus we were inspired to spontaneously start this initiative in an effort to promote active participation in citizenship, which we believe would eventually lead to a more open, participative society.
OUR BELIEFS
o The capacity to which our society can grow is immeasurable
o Increased communication between the government and the people is essential for society to improve and progress as a whole, and lead to a more participative and united society
o Citizens should bear in mind the responsibility of keeping to legal boundaries while expressing their views
o Political maturity is essential to the concept of active citizenship
OUR AIMS FOR THIS PROJECT
o To push for the concept of a more open, participative society in which people can discuss and air their views in an intellectual and insightful manner, bearing in mind the need to adhere to the law while doing so.
o Galvanize the youths of today to rise up from the apathy they are stereotyped with and take an active role in airing their views, as well as participate actively in the molding of our society
o To raise funds for Youth Guidance, a charity organization which works with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Police in mentoring and reaching out to youths at risk. For more information on the organization, please see the section titled “About Youth Guidance” below.
o To ultimately help create a more participative, united society where everyone has a part to play in active citizenship
THE CONTEXT OF THE “WHITE ELEPHANT” IN OUR PROJECT
We would like to remind the public that even though the White Elephant has become our mascot and symbol for the project, we are in no way attempting to judge or condone the Buangkok MRT incident. Rather, we are using the accidental fame of the elephants to spark interest in our project; they also serve as a reminder that legal boundaries are important and should be adhered to even while expressing one’s views and opinions about political issues.
email: proj.white.elephant@gmail.com
I will remain insistently agnostic about this, at least until I've finished Robinson Crusoe. Rosa Parks T-Shirt Project
Chinese Newspaper article
T-Shirt logo
I tried to do a rough translation of the article, for people like me who can't understand Chinese, but it was unfortunately beyond me. Fortunately, there is a helpful information sheet below.
Attached document:
INFORMATION SHEET
A project brought to you by class 415 of Raffles Girls School (Secondary)
HOW IT ALL STARTED
There was a recent incident in which eight white elephants made out of cardboard were placed at the Buangkok MRT station on the North-East Line by some residents to convey their views on how the station is still as yet closed. This issue sparked off a huge debate amongst Singaporeans, not to mention provoked much interest in the closure of the station, the subsequent acts taken by the government, and expressing the views of Singaporeans in general.
Our class has always taken a strong interest in current affairs and this in particular caught our attention. We are not embarking on this project to judge the act in any way; rather we feel that it brought a very important issue – effective, reasonable ways of airing one’s views – to prominence. Thus we were inspired to spontaneously start this initiative in an effort to promote active participation in citizenship, which we believe would eventually lead to a more open, participative society.
OUR BELIEFS
o The capacity to which our society can grow is immeasurable
o Increased communication between the government and the people is essential for society to improve and progress as a whole, and lead to a more participative and united society
o Citizens should bear in mind the responsibility of keeping to legal boundaries while expressing their views
o Political maturity is essential to the concept of active citizenship
OUR AIMS FOR THIS PROJECT
o To push for the concept of a more open, participative society in which people can discuss and air their views in an intellectual and insightful manner, bearing in mind the need to adhere to the law while doing so.
o Galvanize the youths of today to rise up from the apathy they are stereotyped with and take an active role in airing their views, as well as participate actively in the molding of our society
o To raise funds for Youth Guidance, a charity organization which works with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Police in mentoring and reaching out to youths at risk. For more information on the organization, please see the section titled “About Youth Guidance” below.
o To ultimately help create a more participative, united society where everyone has a part to play in active citizenship
THE CONTEXT OF THE “WHITE ELEPHANT” IN OUR PROJECT
We would like to remind the public that even though the White Elephant has become our mascot and symbol for the project, we are in no way attempting to judge or condone the Buangkok MRT incident. Rather, we are using the accidental fame of the elephants to spark interest in our project; they also serve as a reminder that legal boundaries are important and should be adhered to even while expressing one’s views and opinions about political issues.
email: proj.white.elephant@gmail.com
Post ID: 113155108746035421
I hate Robinson Crusoe. And, I think, so does everyone else. He fazes even a legendary graduate student. [Addendum: If anyone understands the stupid model of Robinson in an exchange/production economy, please contact me. And apparently the bastard shows up in Macroeconomic models too - joy!]
"In this economy Robinson Crusoe plays a dual role: he is both a consumer and a producer. Robinson can spend his time loafing on the beach thereby consuming leisure, or he can spend time gathering coconuts. The more coconuts he gathers the more he has to eat, but the less time he has to improve his tan...
Suppose that Robinson is tired of simultaneously being a producer and consumer and that he decides to alternate roles. One day he will behave entirely as a producer, and the next day he will behave entirely as a consumer. In order to coordinate these activities, he decides to set up a labour market and a coconut market.
He also sets up a firm, Crusoe, Inc., and becomes its sole shareholder. The firm is going to look at the prices for labor and coconuts and decide how much labor to hire and how many coconuts to produce, guided by the principle of profit maximization. Robinson, in his role as a worker, is going to collect income from working at the firm; in his role as shareholder in the firm he will collect profits; and, in his role as consumer he will decide how much to purchase of the firm's output. (No doubt this sounds peculiar, but there really isn't that much else to do on a desert island.)...
We're going to think about this problem first from the viewpoint of Crusoe, Inc., and then from the viewpoint of Robinson, the consumer. The discussion is a little schizophrenic at times, but that's what you have to put up with if you want to have an economy with only one person."
"In this economy Robinson Crusoe plays a dual role: he is both a consumer and a producer. Robinson can spend his time loafing on the beach thereby consuming leisure, or he can spend time gathering coconuts. The more coconuts he gathers the more he has to eat, but the less time he has to improve his tan...
Suppose that Robinson is tired of simultaneously being a producer and consumer and that he decides to alternate roles. One day he will behave entirely as a producer, and the next day he will behave entirely as a consumer. In order to coordinate these activities, he decides to set up a labour market and a coconut market.
He also sets up a firm, Crusoe, Inc., and becomes its sole shareholder. The firm is going to look at the prices for labor and coconuts and decide how much labor to hire and how many coconuts to produce, guided by the principle of profit maximization. Robinson, in his role as a worker, is going to collect income from working at the firm; in his role as shareholder in the firm he will collect profits; and, in his role as consumer he will decide how much to purchase of the firm's output. (No doubt this sounds peculiar, but there really isn't that much else to do on a desert island.)...
We're going to think about this problem first from the viewpoint of Crusoe, Inc., and then from the viewpoint of Robinson, the consumer. The discussion is a little schizophrenic at times, but that's what you have to put up with if you want to have an economy with only one person."
Post ID: 113153570466684163
A late followup to the silly "universal conscience" argument:
A: I cannot believe this. How is homosexuality immoral?
You see the problem with your argument, really, is that it sucks. What the hell is a lawful society ordered upon society's combined morals?? Now that's a super theory. You should publish it, you could really get a PhD for that breakthrough.
What the hell, really, is your idea of a 'conscience'? Because after having not read the posts for about two weeks and coming back after so long, it really seems as if your use of the word 'conscience' is interchangeable with 'my narrow world view based on a non-superficial and totalitarian interpretation of the Bible'. And sista, that just don't cut it. What the hell is a conscience? Mightn't it be an artificial construct, a human conception? And haven't the world's shittiest deeds happened on the best of consciences? Oh, let's say, the crusades. Which good God-fearing
Christians with a strait understanding of the Bible, incited in the name of God. Of course I'm caricaturing, but that's still a salient point.
On a tangential note, it has occurred to me that your style of argument and the line of argument are exactly the same. Both are highfalutin, holier-than-thou, moral-highground (of course, you being so 'moral'). Much like evangelical Christianity, you cannot tell when your simplistic arguments and your disgustingly
pharisaical tone of voice drives people absolutely insane.
The point is, there is a difference between morality and law, a distinction which I think ELgin has failed to make. A legal thing may not be moral, just as a moral thing may not be legal. The main difference between my (liberal) view and B's view is that B thinks that laws must conform to HIS idea of conscience and morality, while in my view you're really free to do whatever you want to do as long as you aren't harming anyone else. Whereas you can't do anything which offends B's conscience (by which I take to mean his squeamishness) in his perfect world.
Thank God most of the developed world thinks more like me than like B.
you see, when people disagree with you (or deviate from what you view as normal), they don't necessarily have to be a) wrong (in the more fundamental sense of the word, as in right vs wrong) or b) immoral.
you see, you can disagree with me. i will not call you immoral. i will call you extremely stupid.
A: I cannot believe this. How is homosexuality immoral?
You see the problem with your argument, really, is that it sucks. What the hell is a lawful society ordered upon society's combined morals?? Now that's a super theory. You should publish it, you could really get a PhD for that breakthrough.
What the hell, really, is your idea of a 'conscience'? Because after having not read the posts for about two weeks and coming back after so long, it really seems as if your use of the word 'conscience' is interchangeable with 'my narrow world view based on a non-superficial and totalitarian interpretation of the Bible'. And sista, that just don't cut it. What the hell is a conscience? Mightn't it be an artificial construct, a human conception? And haven't the world's shittiest deeds happened on the best of consciences? Oh, let's say, the crusades. Which good God-fearing
Christians with a strait understanding of the Bible, incited in the name of God. Of course I'm caricaturing, but that's still a salient point.
On a tangential note, it has occurred to me that your style of argument and the line of argument are exactly the same. Both are highfalutin, holier-than-thou, moral-highground (of course, you being so 'moral'). Much like evangelical Christianity, you cannot tell when your simplistic arguments and your disgustingly
pharisaical tone of voice drives people absolutely insane.
The point is, there is a difference between morality and law, a distinction which I think ELgin has failed to make. A legal thing may not be moral, just as a moral thing may not be legal. The main difference between my (liberal) view and B's view is that B thinks that laws must conform to HIS idea of conscience and morality, while in my view you're really free to do whatever you want to do as long as you aren't harming anyone else. Whereas you can't do anything which offends B's conscience (by which I take to mean his squeamishness) in his perfect world.
Thank God most of the developed world thinks more like me than like B.
you see, when people disagree with you (or deviate from what you view as normal), they don't necessarily have to be a) wrong (in the more fundamental sense of the word, as in right vs wrong) or b) immoral.
you see, you can disagree with me. i will not call you immoral. i will call you extremely stupid.
Post ID: 113152189959999844
Something I could profitably pass on:
"Hey everyone,
I'm wondering if you could help me with this: I want to know whether different university/college libraries permit students to check out DVDs from the library, i.e., take the media out of the library and return it on another day.
Currently at Carleton College students may only use media resources within the library (for various reasons) but this policy is under review, and one thing I'm doing is gathering information on this policy-- for universities across the USA, but even in England and Singapore and Denmark or Russia or as much as I can get.
So obviously I thought, what better way than to email the Humanities group, rather than check out individual university webpages. I figure this is something you're probably already familiar with.
I'd really appreciate it. Your response could be a simple yes! (students may check out media resources from the library) or no! (students may not check out media resources from the library) or in-between (yes for some media resources, no for other media resources).
So... just email me at zafarn@carleton.edu and it'd be great to hear from you! PLEASE RESPOND! I know how easy it is to forget about emails but this should be really quick!
Hope you're have a fabulous term!"
***
'Hormonal' women most attractive - "Women with high levels of the sex hormone oestrogen have prettier faces, research suggests. The findings make evolutionary sense - men are attracted to the most fertile women, the University of St Andrews team told a Royal Society journal."
Amazingly Yahoo Sucks Even More - "In an astounding show of jackassedness Yahoo deleted my Yahoo ID last year with no warning and no explanation. The Yahoo ID was the owner of 4 Yahoo groups including a humor list I had been operating since 1991 (I moved it to Yahoo in 2001) all of which are orphaned. I have sent numerous requests for an explanation, for the list of members of the groups, to have the groups transferred or at least to have them killed to Yahoo all of which are answered with a ‘We care about you, here is your case ID’ email and never another word. Earlier this year I even called the Yahoo office in California and spoke with a nice young lady who was unable to help me and told me to email the same address I had been trying to contact for the last few months."
So much for the keylogger theory.
Porn makes sperm better swimmers - "Looking at pornographic images of men and women together can increase the quality of a man's sperm, a new study suggests. Pornography involving a woman alone or multiple women doesn't have the same effect. Evolutionary biologist Professor Leigh Simmons of the University of Western Australia says the effect is based on an evolutionary process observed in animals known as sperm competition."
Interesting nugget from the disturbed bunny
"Hey everyone,
I'm wondering if you could help me with this: I want to know whether different university/college libraries permit students to check out DVDs from the library, i.e., take the media out of the library and return it on another day.
Currently at Carleton College students may only use media resources within the library (for various reasons) but this policy is under review, and one thing I'm doing is gathering information on this policy-- for universities across the USA, but even in England and Singapore and Denmark or Russia or as much as I can get.
So obviously I thought, what better way than to email the Humanities group, rather than check out individual university webpages. I figure this is something you're probably already familiar with.
I'd really appreciate it. Your response could be a simple yes! (students may check out media resources from the library) or no! (students may not check out media resources from the library) or in-between (yes for some media resources, no for other media resources).
So... just email me at zafarn@carleton.edu and it'd be great to hear from you! PLEASE RESPOND! I know how easy it is to forget about emails but this should be really quick!
Hope you're have a fabulous term!"
***
'Hormonal' women most attractive - "Women with high levels of the sex hormone oestrogen have prettier faces, research suggests. The findings make evolutionary sense - men are attracted to the most fertile women, the University of St Andrews team told a Royal Society journal."
Amazingly Yahoo Sucks Even More - "In an astounding show of jackassedness Yahoo deleted my Yahoo ID last year with no warning and no explanation. The Yahoo ID was the owner of 4 Yahoo groups including a humor list I had been operating since 1991 (I moved it to Yahoo in 2001) all of which are orphaned. I have sent numerous requests for an explanation, for the list of members of the groups, to have the groups transferred or at least to have them killed to Yahoo all of which are answered with a ‘We care about you, here is your case ID’ email and never another word. Earlier this year I even called the Yahoo office in California and spoke with a nice young lady who was unable to help me and told me to email the same address I had been trying to contact for the last few months."
So much for the keylogger theory.
Porn makes sperm better swimmers - "Looking at pornographic images of men and women together can increase the quality of a man's sperm, a new study suggests. Pornography involving a woman alone or multiple women doesn't have the same effect. Evolutionary biologist Professor Leigh Simmons of the University of Western Australia says the effect is based on an evolutionary process observed in animals known as sperm competition."
Interesting nugget from the disturbed bunny
Post ID: 113146800207050611
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
