Astroboy, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion and I to mine. What did you say you wrote about me?! Aha! Hidden agenda. Hmmm… I could sue you for defamation or laugh at your lack of logic. I certainly wouldn’t give your blog post a link.

I can explain though the way I spoke that day — perhaps with some annoyance. I was feeling angry NOT at tomorrow.sg or anyone on the panel (afterall, I don’t know any one of them or you personally), but rather that SOMEONE STOLE MY OPTICAL MOUSE from my paper bag in the auditorium just an hour ago. Chern Jie and Shu Yuen from The Digital Movement can verify this.

Finally, to all, am I really supposed to approach in secret people who blogged negatively about me in public? Shouldn’t they approach me first before they write something negative about me?

Tinkertailor, I’m surprised to hear this from one of the editors. Perhaps you are joking, being honest… For a while, I didn’t know how to respond to a statement like this.

Nevertheless, it’s immaterial to me whether Tomorrow.sg editors are biased or not in reality. Or whether one or most of the editors don’t mind being called “biased”. I have had enough encounters where I challenged the mechanism and people thought that I was attacking them. So long as I didn’t say that (”biased ediors”), I need to clarify this.

Afternote 2007-03-27: This issue has been settled as of yesterday. Kevin and I have made peace.

Kevin may have misconcluded your message as he has mixed up potentially a general feel of tomorrow.sg that some bloggers feel that the editorial team may be biased.

Other bloggers are not challenging the mechanism; they are really in the opinion that they are biased.

So it is understandable how Kevin may have misconstrued your meaning.

All in all, I really do think that it was an honest misunderstanding, with no malice, no ill-intention.

Human speech and writing is not the best form of communication. Meanings and words always get misunderstood. But speech and writing is the only way (no matter how flawed) we have at the moment. Until the day we can communicate telepathically, we just have to live with the flaws.

I have a feeling that my comment here may be misunderstood. :p

1. I’ve apologized right from the start.

2. I’ve made repeated edits to the post to be more accurate in quoting you.

3. The duplicate post on Singapura.org was a technical issue, not something I intentionally cross-posted. It has since been removed.

4. I’ve added an admission of error on the offending line on my blog.

For those who know me, I’m a pretty down to earth guy and I wouldn’t harm a soul. I made a human error, admitted to it and fixed it. Even in the world of professional journalism, despite all attempts, mistakes do happen.

Perhaps I’m a stranger to the ping.sg community, but still, I’m amazed that no one here has come forth to speak out for me.

Won’t anyone help to mediate?

sorry i quite new to the online world…but is something like this such a big deal? i dun seem to find anything wrong about what kelvin wrote. i too feel that while the question is a good valid one, the way you state your points, i think folks at tomorrow.sg defintely dun feel the love

I have made NO allusion to your intention(s). I merely cited facts and wrote about my reactions upon reading what you have written.

2. The Singapura blog was more of my experiment in aggregating blog content. It naturally picked up the earlier edition of my post and not the revised one. I don’t always pay attention to it and I’ve deleted it now that you’ve brought it to everyone’s attention. There is no need for

3. I blogged about this as I wanted to help give you a voice. Though I have made a mistake in quoting you, instead of privately seeking recourse with me, you’ve done me harm by implicating my intent. Once again, my only intention is to give fair coverage, but even that has proven to be difficult with you.

Don’t worry, I will edit the quote to more accurately reflect your view. I hope the community at large will grant their wisdom on this and speak up for either of us.

@Kevin: It is true that “the typical practice would be for the latter to contact [the party concerned] privately for rectification”. Will keep this in mind the next time.

For the record though, I did give you a clear hint in the ping.sg shoutbox by entering “Some bloggers would like to chat with you”. You took it at once, acknowledged that “it seems negatory…” and made some changes (removing the first and second instances of “some bloggers”) to the post in your main blog. However, your Singapura blog has remained unchanged. Furthermore, I don’t think I’ve even met you though I saw you on the panel from afar.

I guess some had miscontrued your question but I dun think Kevin in using the word “arguing” meant it in an offensive way but more in the context of an “intellectual discourse” =)

“I also realized how some bloggers I thought I knew had multiple pseudonyms, and that they don’t tell you anything unless you ask them *hint hint*…”

The second instance was quoted above. Both instances of “some bloggers” are still there in your Singapura version. (btw, Kevin, have I met you yet?)

After the revision of the second instance, I was more startled because at no time, did I use the word “biased” during the session to describe the Tomorrow.sg editors. I’ve explained that I support Tomorrow.sg too by having a link from my blog to it.

DK, there is a great difference between challenging the mechanism versus accusing the people of biasedness.

I have to clarify this point.

Once again, I meant no offense to you and I did immediately respond to your hint on the ping.sg shoutbox to change the post accordingly (thus the multiple blog changes).

Rather than to delete it, I felt that it would have been more responsible to try and highlight what everyone said. Where I fail to, the typical practice would be for the latter to contact me privately for rectification, where I would then give an acknowledgment of the matter on the blog.