-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
The Chen Show Mao Affair?
- Thread starter scroobal
- Start date
mind reading hor...
Initially I was very reluctant to even notice this thread, but come to think of it, this is nothing more than a forum anybody can say any sort of bovine excrements they want, without the need for substantiating their claims in any ways or means. They can go on character assassination spree with practical impunity.
One very good technique I have learned here is not to make a direct assertion, but to question a person's motive to tear down a person. Defending against such "questions" is practically impossible. If you reply, you come across as having something to be defensive about; if you ignore the lingering doubt may just persist until the negative inference becomes accepted for a fact.
So my take is, take everything you read hear with a pinch..... no... a bowl of salt.
One very good technique I have learned here is not to make a direct assertion, but to question a person's motive to tear down a person. Defending against such "questions" is practically impossible. If you reply, you come across as having something to be defensive about; if you ignore the lingering doubt may just persist until the negative inference becomes accepted for a fact.
So my take is, take everything you read hear with a pinch..... no... a bowl of salt.
That was not what the forum was meant to be. But some chose to turn this into Onion News. TS is one hell of a penglipurlara who could spin a story about anyone he wants to. I am surprised he did not put his talents to good use at the Prostitute Times, why? Probably bcos even the Pros Times require some sort of substantiation.
Last edited:
He has continuing emotional baggage that he left the service too early and his "talents" were under-utilised.
Too cowardly to join the opposition, while he harbours some lingering hope that the estbalishment will still have a place for him if he helps their cause online.
That's why he makes little jabs at the establishment so as to make himself look anti pap, but reserves his "punches" for the time just before elections.
And also demands that his nickname/moniker maintains some ridicuolous "credibility/standing" and abuses anyone who gets in the way of that.
Finally there are more forumers who could see through scroobal the scum. He could even be drawing a pension from the PAP, leeching the system he "detested" so much.
his word is gospel don't you know
A few weeks before GE 2011, Scroobal started this thread to try and sabotage the campaign of CSM and WP.
And he has recently claimed in this forum that both CSJ and LTK are pap agents/moles, which are bogus allegations.
When all else fails for the PAP, this is what they would claim in order to try and swing votes their way.
Scroobal is cunning and manipulative, he tries to make insignificant anti pap posts during non election time, but nearer to the GE, he will try to sabotage the opposition's campaign online, to get into the good books of the establishment. It didn't work the last time, but beware of his cunning and manipulative tactics next time.
And he has recently claimed in this forum that both CSJ and LTK are pap agents/moles, which are bogus allegations.
When all else fails for the PAP, this is what they would claim in order to try and swing votes their way.
Scroobal is cunning and manipulative, he tries to make insignificant anti pap posts during non election time, but nearer to the GE, he will try to sabotage the opposition's campaign online, to get into the good books of the establishment. It didn't work the last time, but beware of his cunning and manipulative tactics next time.
That's what he wants his precious and sacred internet moniker to be, infallible and "credible". Trying to be influential and popular among a bunch of annonymous internet monikers is his absurd objective.
Unfortunately, the manipulative idiot doesn't realise that there are not that many people here to be influenced and most aren't that easily influenced either. That however, doesn't change the fact that Scroobal is cunning and manipulative, as can be seen in the difference between the threads he starts during non-election time and those he starts a few weeks before elections.
Last edited:
This chap has been "missing" for some time, his last post was on 14 March.
Hmmmmmmmm.........................................
CSM has turned out very well, so let's put this issue to rest. I still agree that CSM could have been more forthright about the NS issue instead of painting himself as volunteer, which of course, no one volunteers for NS.
The PEH fiasco concerning his being on the NCMP ballot was even worse, but I chose not to comment as it was crucial that our attention be focussed on securing HG with as high a majority as possible. Internally, let me assure you there were mega facepalms going around. It was embarrassing, considering that LTK has carefully taught his cadre to be media savvy.
LOL, it wasn't a fiasco.
He had asked to be taken out of the ballot, so he claimed he was not on it becasue he may have thought it was already done.
Definitely not dishonest and not a fiasco. LOL.
Btw, your manipulative kaypohchee boss Scroobye is now PEH's greatest fan, just thought you should know. It's LTK and CSM he is targetting. LOL.
You can figure out a lot of things with common sense.
The NCMP was between Eric Tan, Gerald Giam and Png. GG was voted, ET came in 2nd and Png 3rd. When Hougang came up, ET had already left WP so Png was the best choice not yet in parliament.
Let us get back to the crux of the matter. The whole thing started because Teo CH asked if Png was WP's best choice. The answer is obvious. Despite asking to be removed, Png had 1 vote. The unknown CEC member who voted him is free to disregard his request to be excluded. Maybe he felt Png was better than GG or ET. Nothing wrong. Glenda Han and Fazli Talip who did not ask to be removed didn't even get a single vote.
But TCH was clearly unable to comprehend something simple as this and went on and looked dumb in the end.
Last edited:
There would have been only one situation where I would have a problem with Png, and that would be if he was a CEC member and had voted for himself.
Obviously he didn't and the guy who voted for him had every right to ignore what Png asked for. It was his vote and he wanted to vote for Png, so what.
Hence there is no reason for ANYONE, whether in the public eye or under the veil of internet annonymity, to give him a label or allege that there was anything wrong with what he said or did, including calling the whole matter a fiasco. Anyone who still doesn't understand the common sense behind this, is either not very bright or trying to be mischievous, and not in a funny way.
It also makes me laugh when not being "media savvy" becomes a problem that needs to be condemned or judged. Would have thought that being "media savvy" actually has some negative connotations.
Oh and I'll address the lame attempts to label CSM later, errrr.............. perhaps when this thread goes into the second page. LOL.
It would make no sense for Png to ask himself to be removed from the ballot when he could have kept his mouth shut, then vote for himself. Such cases will fit nicely into IMH.
Either he kept himself in the race and voted for himself, or ask to be removed and voted for either GG or ET, which means the vote for him came from someone else.
If he kept himself in the race and voted for himself, the idea to use the lie that he asked for himself to be removed is not likely to come up, unless again he is a IMH case. If it were me trying to create a lie, I am more likely to lie that I lost very marginally to GG and maybe add the lie that I did better than ET.
All these are derived from logical analysis.
Cut the analysis short. PEH did not vote for himself and he had asked his name to be removed from the ballot. The request was not granted. On the day itself his name was on the ballot and received one vote.
PEH should have just given the story as it is rather than say he took his name out if the ballot. Not completely wrong yet not completely right. Opposition supporters focus on the not completely wrong part. PAP supporters focus on the not completely right part.
PEH should have just given the story as it is rather than say he took his name out if the ballot. Not completely wrong yet not completely right. Opposition supporters focus on the not completely wrong part. PAP supporters focus on the not completely right part.
I did say this before when the incident was published in the press.
People with establishment mentality tend to focus on every single literal word that someone says, and try to find fault with it.
"He took his name out of the ballot" not clear enough for you. LOL. My word, does he have to say "I asked for my name to be taken out of the ballot, but I don't know if my wish was fulfilled or not" and then take a sip of his earl grey and sit with his knees together.
LOL, if only he could be as eloquent as your cunning and manipulative master Scroobal.
And for that, you call the event a "fiasco".
But you know why I think you are a snake?
Because you sent PMs to AK to apologise and then continued to bash him in the forum.
You also sent me a PM claiming that Scroobal should be the one apologising, and then you continued to run interference for him in the forum, which of course a ka kia sycophantic lackey should and would.
Seriously snake, I prefer to have a discussion with the roadside cobbler and the kopitiam meepok seller than you, At least they give an honest account and don't twist around like a fucking sycophantic snake.
Last edited:
When a person solves a problem, the picky ones ask why the problem was solved using solution A and not solution B. They miss the picture that the person bothered to solve the problem unless the solution came with averse side effects.
Png's story and choice of words is not the issue. TCH was clearly saying Png was a reject. Anyone with a mind of his own can tell it is absolute illogicality. Png and Glenda Han were the best scorers among the candidates not in parliament and still with WP. For the want of stupidity, TCH had to carry on to assert that Png was a liar. Again this can be established using logic.
I don't even want to assume that Png "stumbled" because he didn't know how to respond to remarks so devoid of intelligence and at the same time not show utter disrespect to a minister of the land, although this possibility is high.
Similar threads
