What gives you the idea that I've painted myself into a corner?
I've proposed a yardstick based upon a sample of ST readers, and
you've proposed the beginnings of an alternative based on netizens
but not yet taken it to the point where something can be done with
it. Since it's your responsibility to take
your idea to the
point of execution, the ball's in your court and you are the one who's painted
himself into a corner. Besides, if I asked you to sample the
netizens and bail me out, logically that would mean that the result
would work in favour of my argument, not yours - are you admitting
that I am in fact correct?
If, as you say, you can't give me more, the decent and logical
thing to do would be to concede. Like I said, I'm willing to wager
that 95% of ST readers could not provide you with definitions of
words that Lee has used, such as "perfidy", "atavistic" and
"unapologetic". If you want to resist acquiesence, why not put your
money where your mouth is? Can you not show me that at least 50%
(yes, I'll even drop the standards just for you) can define those
words without Googling them? Proofless protest is purely petulance
(if I may engage in some loose alliteration here).
As I've said before, feel free to make the language as flowery and
complex as you want, as long as it does not defeat the basic
purpose of communication. I assert that Lee has committed this
error in his writing. In its website, the Straits Times claims a
circulation figure of 370,000, and counting the netizens would be
very likely to increase that figure how many of those people do
you think would have the capacity to appreciate Lees writing?
10,000? 30,000? Its still a tiny minority.
Okay, for arguments sake lets go with your condition of
readership type/size notwithstanding (personally, I think thats
a cop-out of the meat of this debate). The substance of the debate
between Lee and Wong is Singapores maintenance of an Asian
identity. Has the government not already raised this point ad
nauseum in National Day rallies and any other address to the
Singaporean public as an issue that they insist Singaporeams need
to take seriously? Given the subject matter and the medium, how
could Lees article possibly only be justifiably limited to the few
who can understand what hes writing?
If anything, I'm arguing for an increased plurality while
accusing the forum editors of imposing a plurality reduced through
Lee's language - have you entirely misunderstood what I've been
saying?
You can see that Im heading towards the point of saying that not
only is Lee wrong, but the Forum editors as well. If you wish to
speak of Singaporean paradigms that demean us, unthinking
acceptance of titles and job descriptions fits the bill perfectly.
It is a habit that I would just as soon avoid, and one that I
reccomend you adopt. I don't particularly care who the person is -
if the logic of the situation stands against them they're wrong and
I'll say just as much.
Yes, taking deliberate efforts to expand ones linguistic powers is
an endeavour with merit, but that's a red herring as far as the
present discussion is concerned. If you're talking about ambition,
I would suggest you keep Sir Jack Brabham's quote in mind: "To
finish first, first you have to finish". In any for of writing,
style is subservient to the message that is meant to be conveyed
and the problem here is the way in which the style constitutes an
obstacle to conveyance of said message.
I hate repeating myself, but if the message doesnt get through,
one does what one must: lets not lose the forest for the trees,
because that's a clear example of the ignorance and blind spots
about which you chuck in irrelevant and disjointed quotes.
In your last post you've shot yourself in the foot at least twice
in your efforts to ram your points through, and to be honest that
takes the fun of this debate away. Take a deep breath and some
time, be logical rather than emotional about this debate and regain
the quality of your previous posts.
