The Online Citizen : Not Beyond Deceit, Dishonesty and Hypocrisy
Whilsts The Online Citizen (TOC) adopts a self-righteous attitude with respect to the state media for their "censorship", "astroturfing", "character assasination", etc, it is not beyond the editors in TOC to engage in similar conduct.
I was engaged in several exchanges and discussions in response to a recent article in the TOC titled "Hong Lim Park turns into a sea of Pink" ( http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/06/hlp-turns-into-a-sea-of-pink/comment-page-1/#comments).
From the TOC editor(s)' own admission, I had asked "reasonable" questions on the issue. Perhaps, my views were deemed too "reasonable" to the extent that the editor(s) decided to spuriously and dishonestly claim that:
Appearently the stand I took against homosexuality was unpalatable to the TOC editors. Hence, it had to be discredited by them through their spurious claims that I had engaged in "astroturfing", posting under "different pseudonyms" and making "hateful comments" as someone called "Ang".
I did what any reasonable person would do when they are wrongly accused. I asked the TOC editors to produce their evidence. This is what I wrote:
I had expected editor(s) in the TOC to have some decency and honesty and produce my IP address to prove their claims. Instead, my message appeared for a while before the pussilanimous TOC editor(s) censored it. A second post I made asking the TOC:
The TOC editors' intent was clear. They were pushing their own agenda in trying to portray the views of homosexuals to be the dominant view and one which had widespread support. They did this by allowing a few token and dissenting posts to appear and choosing to censor opposing views. They did this by attempting to discredit, without so much as a shred of evidence, posters whom in their own unguarded admission, were asking "reasonable" questions or who had opposing viewpoints.
My attempt to invite the homosexuals to continue the exchange at Sam Alfresco Heaven where any views could not be censored (see below) appeared for a few hours before the message was yet again censored by the TOC editor(s).
The attempt by the TOC's editors to smear me and censor my views by dishonestly claiming I was “astroturfing”, “writing under different pseudonyms” and asking "reasonable" questions as ‘Thomas’” but “make(ing) hateful comments as ‘Ang’” makes the TOC editors no different from the media mouthpieces of the state that they ever so self-righeously like to criticise and condemn.
The TOC's editors should be roundly condemned for their deceit, dishonesty and hypocrisy.
My advice to those who post in the TOC or who subscribe to their website is to be wary. The TOC editors' capacity for deceit, dishonesty and hypocrisy should not be underestimated.
The TOC editors' deceit, dishonesty and hypocrisy makes them no different from those they choose to regularly criticise and condemn.
Thomas Lee
Whilsts The Online Citizen (TOC) adopts a self-righteous attitude with respect to the state media for their "censorship", "astroturfing", "character assasination", etc, it is not beyond the editors in TOC to engage in similar conduct.
I was engaged in several exchanges and discussions in response to a recent article in the TOC titled "Hong Lim Park turns into a sea of Pink" ( http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/06/hlp-turns-into-a-sea-of-pink/comment-page-1/#comments).
From the TOC editor(s)' own admission, I had asked "reasonable" questions on the issue. Perhaps, my views were deemed too "reasonable" to the extent that the editor(s) decided to spuriously and dishonestly claim that:
"theonlinecitizen 19 June 2011
‘Thomas’, stop astro-turfing to write under different pseudonyms. You ask ‘reasonable’ questions as ‘Thomas’ and make hateful comments as ‘Ang’."
‘Thomas’, stop astro-turfing to write under different pseudonyms. You ask ‘reasonable’ questions as ‘Thomas’ and make hateful comments as ‘Ang’."
Appearently the stand I took against homosexuality was unpalatable to the TOC editors. Hence, it had to be discredited by them through their spurious claims that I had engaged in "astroturfing", posting under "different pseudonyms" and making "hateful comments" as someone called "Ang".
I did what any reasonable person would do when they are wrongly accused. I asked the TOC editors to produce their evidence. This is what I wrote:
"Thomas Lee 19 June 2011
What “astroturfing” rubbish are you talking about? I post as one Thomas and one Thomas alone.
If you have the evidence that I am indeed “Ang” or anyone else, produce it.
I do not have to rely on different nicks to take on any homosexuals, no matter their numbers and no matter how vociferous they are.
If you would like to use your lousy and baseless “astroturfing” accusations to ban me from posting, go ahead.
But do yourself a favour first. Produce that evidence that I am “Ang” or whoever else you claim I am supposed to be.
Your comment is awaiting moderation."
What “astroturfing” rubbish are you talking about? I post as one Thomas and one Thomas alone.
If you have the evidence that I am indeed “Ang” or anyone else, produce it.
I do not have to rely on different nicks to take on any homosexuals, no matter their numbers and no matter how vociferous they are.
If you would like to use your lousy and baseless “astroturfing” accusations to ban me from posting, go ahead.
But do yourself a favour first. Produce that evidence that I am “Ang” or whoever else you claim I am supposed to be.
Your comment is awaiting moderation."
I had expected editor(s) in the TOC to have some decency and honesty and produce my IP address to prove their claims. Instead, my message appeared for a while before the pussilanimous TOC editor(s) censored it. A second post I made asking the TOC:
"Thomas Lee 20 June 2011
To TOC:
Why is my response(see below) still under moderation? Shouldn’t I have the right to respond to your dishonest and false claim that I was “astroturfing”, etc? "
was yet again censored after appearing just for a few hours through the TOC's use of its "Your comment is awaiting moderation" censorship weapon.To TOC:
Why is my response(see below) still under moderation? Shouldn’t I have the right to respond to your dishonest and false claim that I was “astroturfing”, etc? "
The TOC editors' intent was clear. They were pushing their own agenda in trying to portray the views of homosexuals to be the dominant view and one which had widespread support. They did this by allowing a few token and dissenting posts to appear and choosing to censor opposing views. They did this by attempting to discredit, without so much as a shred of evidence, posters whom in their own unguarded admission, were asking "reasonable" questions or who had opposing viewpoints.
My attempt to invite the homosexuals to continue the exchange at Sam Alfresco Heaven where any views could not be censored (see below) appeared for a few hours before the message was yet again censored by the TOC editor(s).
"Thomas Lee 20 June 2011
To all the homosexuals.
Not sure if this message will be censored by TOC again.
I will continue this exchange at Sam Alfresco Heaven. This will be my last post in this forum.
The attempt by TOC to smear me and censor my views by dishonestly claiming I was “astroturfing”, “writing under different pseudonyms” and making ‘reasonable’ questions as ‘Thomas’” but “make(ing) hateful comments as ‘Ang’” makes the TOC no different from the PAP mouthpiece, The Straits Time.
Your comment is awaiting moderation."
To all the homosexuals.
Not sure if this message will be censored by TOC again.
I will continue this exchange at Sam Alfresco Heaven. This will be my last post in this forum.
The attempt by TOC to smear me and censor my views by dishonestly claiming I was “astroturfing”, “writing under different pseudonyms” and making ‘reasonable’ questions as ‘Thomas’” but “make(ing) hateful comments as ‘Ang’” makes the TOC no different from the PAP mouthpiece, The Straits Time.
Your comment is awaiting moderation."
The attempt by the TOC's editors to smear me and censor my views by dishonestly claiming I was “astroturfing”, “writing under different pseudonyms” and asking "reasonable" questions as ‘Thomas’” but “make(ing) hateful comments as ‘Ang’” makes the TOC editors no different from the media mouthpieces of the state that they ever so self-righeously like to criticise and condemn.
The TOC's editors should be roundly condemned for their deceit, dishonesty and hypocrisy.
My advice to those who post in the TOC or who subscribe to their website is to be wary. The TOC editors' capacity for deceit, dishonesty and hypocrisy should not be underestimated.
The TOC editors' deceit, dishonesty and hypocrisy makes them no different from those they choose to regularly criticise and condemn.
Thomas Lee
