Gopalan Nair in Singapore:Judge Belinda Ang's Kangaroo Court
-
Nair asked for it....and he got what he wanted. Everyone's happy :)
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Nair asked for it....and he got what he wanted. Everyone's happy :)
unfair to one guy is a threaten to everybody -
When a team play rough.another usually will follow
And play rougher.
Politics in SG is open to Singapore citizen ONLY.
If u want to play,join the club called SG Inc.
Dunt quit and want to play,play.
The membership card is the passport.
The most ugly one is to play and want not governed by the rules
of the game.
The rule is form a Party and go for election.
LKY went to this route.
If u want short cut,gavaman also go for short cut.
Ballots or bullets.U can choose to change the world.
But gavaman also can choose---Soft or HARD approach.
U give me face.I give u too.
U dunt give me face.I just tear down my mask---very ugly.
2.Western countries also get Sedition Act to stand by
study the following Aussie Act and other countries carefully.
See if SG Sedition Act is unreasonable.
Pl note that under Aussie laws,those commit outside Aussie
also under Oz jurisdiction:
80.4 Extended geographical jurisdiction for offences
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/INTGUIDE/LAW/sedition.htm
start of quote
In Good Faith : Sedition Law in Australia
E-Brief: Online Only, issued April 2006. Last updated 6 February, 2008
Roy Jordan, Law and Bills Digest Section
John Macarthur (1767–1834). Founder of the wool industry. Charged and acquitted of seditious behaviour against Governor Bligh in 1807-1808.
Portrait (showing him carrying a possibly seditious letter) reproduced by permission Dixson Galleries, State Library of New South Wales' the offence [sedition] is one if the person urges by force or violence the overthrowing of a government, or interfering with an election, or encouraging other people to use – or groups of people – to use force or violence against other groups' -- The Attorney-General, Hon Philip Ruddock MP, Alan Jones Radio Programme, 14 November 2005.Introduction
This e-Brief provides background on the history of sedition as a Commonwealth criminal offence. Some examples of past sedition prosecutions are given. Proposals for reform in the early 1990s are outlined as well as the controversial amendments which were made during 2005. On 2 March 2006, the Attorney-General announced a review of sedition laws would be conducted and it is intended that this e-brief will be updated as needed.
Sedition legislation
Colonies and States
In colonial times and into the twentieth century, some colonies or States contained the offence of seditious activities in their criminal legislation eg Criminal Code (Qld) ss 44–46, 52; Criminal Code (Tas) ss 66-67, Criminal Code (WA) ss 44–46, 52, Criminal Code (NT) ss 45-46. In those States where criminal offences have been codified, these offences still exist today. In the other States, however, seditious libel, uttering seditious words, and participation in a seditious conspiracy were, and still are, common law offences. The exceptions are in South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory, where legislation has repealed the common law offence.
Commonwealth
Laurence Maher (1992) comments that sedition is primarily a peacetime weapon.
In time of war the Commonwealth Government is amply equipped to implement a policy of total mobilisation for the prosecution of the war effort. This last occurred in Australia following the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939. The basic legal mechanism was the National Security Act 1939 and the Regulations made under the Act. The Commonwealth was able to exercise extensive control over the dissemination of information and opinion by (a) the imposition of rigid censorship, (b) the prohibition of certain organisations (such as the Communist Party of Australia), whose aims and activities were considered by the Government to be inimical to the war effort and (c) the internment of alleged subversives. (page 287).
1986 Intelligence and Security (Consequential Amendments) Act 1986 (no. 102). This amended s. 24A to remove references to the United Kingdom and overseas and narrowed the definition of sedition to include the concept of intent to cause violence, etc. This implemented a recommendation by Justice Hope in his 1985 Final Report of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. Second Reading speech.
1989 Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 1989 (no. 108). This amended s. 24E to remove the imposition of a fine to those found guilty of sedition summarily (by a magistrate) in addition to, or instead of, imprisonment. The maximum sentence would now be 12 months imprisonment. This was part of a programme to reform penalty provisions in the Crimes Act. Second Reading speech.
1991 Review of Commonwealth Criminal Law (Gibbs Report). In its Fifth interim report, the Review, chaired by Sir Harry Gibbs, recommended that sections 24-28 of the Crimes Act 1914 be repealed and be replaced by 3 offences: incitement to overthrow the Constitution or the government; incitement to interfere by force or violence with Parliamentary elections; and inciting violence against national, racial or religious groups (new section 28(1)). A dissent in good faith section was also recommended (new section 28(2)). These recommendations were set out in chapter 32 and in a draft bill attached as Part VII, but lay dormant until 2005.
2001 Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Act 2001 (no. 24). This repealed and substituted section 24C to effect the removal of the references in paragraphs 24C(a)-(c) to agreeing or undertaking to engage in a seditious enterprise, conspiring with any person to carry out a seditious enterprise and counselling, advising or attempting to procure the carrying out of a seditious enterprise. These matters were ancillary to the primary offence provided in section 24C, namely engaging in a seditious enterprise. Reliance would instead be placed upon the relevant general ancillary provision in the Criminal Code, namely sections 11.1 (attempt), 11.2 (aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of a primary offence) and 11.5 (conspiracy). Second Reading speech.
The 2005 amendments
2005 Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005 (no. 144). This repealed most of the existing provisions on sedition in the Crimes Act and, in their place, inserted new provisions (sections 80.2-80.6) into the Criminal Code. This was done in accordance with Government policy to put major new offences into the Criminal Code Act 1995 rather than in the Crimes Act. The Code is intended to incorporate old common law offences as well as new changes to the criminal law. The new provisions expanded the offence to include the behaviour of ‘urging’ and the element of recklessness. They commenced on Royal Assent on 28 December 2005. Appendix B shows the seditions provisions in the Crimes Act immediately before their repeal, while Appendix C shows the current provisions in the Criminal Code and the Crimes Act.
Although the new provisions were similar to those already existing, they received much critical comment from a variety of sources. The main criticisms fell into the following categories:
- Some thought the Government had created a new offence and were unaware of the existing provisions, which had been in force since 1920.
- Sedition was an archaic offence and should be repealed, not reinvented.
- Many of the provisions are covered by existing legislation (such as those dealing with incitement) or are more appropriate in other legislation (eg: vilification should be in human rights legislation).
- The Government could use the new provisions against its political enemies.
- The 'good faith' defence has been watered down.
- It is difficult to interpret and apply, especially for non-lawyers. For example, s. 80.2 refers to an organisation or country which 'is specified by Proclamation ... to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth'.
As a result of these comments some amendments were made to the Bill, such as clarifying the role of the media when reporting or publishing comments. Further comment and analysis are provided in the Key Documents listed below:
Parliamentary documents
- Text of Bill
- Explanatory Memorandum, Bills Digest and Parliamentary Debates
- Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005. See especially Submission 80F (from the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law) for sedition provisions.
Other comment
- Special issue of the Human Rights Defender 2005 on the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005. Contains three articles on sedition.
- B. Walker & P. Roney, Memorandum of Advice [to the ABC] re: The Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005, & the proposed amendments to the laws of sedition, October 2005.
- P. Ruddock, "Sedition laws won't curb the right to criticise Queen and country: Attorney-General Philip Ruddock argues that the anti-terrorism bill passed by the Senate this week has been misunderstood", Australian, 8 December 2005, p. 17.
- M. Turnbull, "Put sedition in the dustbins of history", Daily Telegraph, 5 December 2005, p. 20.
Government review of sedition laws
When introducing the sedition law amendments on 3 November 2005, the Attorney-General announced that they would be reviewed by the Government in 2006. After concerns were raised that the review may not be fully independent and a recommendation (no. 28) from the Senate Committee looking into the Bill for a public inquiry, the Government agreed to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) conducting the review.
The terms of reference for the inquiry were announced on 2 March 2006. The Commission was asked to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of the amended sedition legislation and to report by 30 May 2006.The ALRC chair has written about the inquiry in On Line Opinion. A detailed Issues Paper was published on 20 March and a Discussion Paper was published on 29 May. The report, Fighting Words: A Review of Sedition Laws in Australia (ALRC 104), was tabled in Parliament on 13 September and recommended several changes including removal of the word 'sedition' since it was seen as being archaic, but the Commission still supported the offence of urging violence against the government and community groups. All documents may be found on the inquiry website.
Some submissions to the review have been published on the Internet:
- Australian Lawyers for Human Rights
- Australian Press Council
- Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee
- Executive Council of Australian Jewry
- Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law (UNSW)
- Law Institute of Victoria
- National Association for the Visual Arts
- National Tertiary Education Union
- New South Wales Young Lawyers Human Rights Committee
- Sydney PEN
Prosecutions for sedition
Commonwealth prosecutions for sedition were made mainly against members of the Communist Party of Australia (CPA). Some examples were:
- Laurence Louis Sharkey. General Secretary of the CPA, who said he would support a Soviet invasion in certain circumstances and might use force to allow workers to gain power. Sentenced, after appeal, to eighteen months imprisonment and hard labour. See R v Sharkey [1949] HCA 46; (1949) 79 CLR 121 (7 October 1949).
- Gilbert Burns. A CPA Member who publicly said that if there was war with the Soviet Union he would support the USSR. Sentenced to six months imprisonment. See Burns v Ransley [1949] HCA 45; (1949) 79 CLR 101 (7 October 1949).
- William Fardon Burns. The last successful prosecution for sedition under the Crimes Act appears to be that of William Fardon Burns, who was sentenced to six months jail in 1951 for writing seditious articles. (Sweeny v Burns, unreported, NSW Court of Petty Sessions, 1950)
- Chandler, Ogston and Bone. The last unsuccessful prosecutions under the Crimes Act, reported by Laurence Maher (1992, p. 288), were the cases of Herbert Bovyll Chandler, Adam Ogston and James Bone for publishing a seditious article about the monarchy in the June 1953 issue of the Communist Review. The magistrate dismissed the charges. (Sweeny v Chandler, Sweeny v Ogston and Sweeny v Bone, unreported, NSW Court of Petty Session, August - September 1953).
- Brian Cooper. After the W.F. Burns case, there appear to be no more successful prosecutions under the Crimes Act. However, the last federal prosecution and jailing for sedition was in 1960, when Department of Native Affairs officer Brian Cooper was prosecuted for urging 'the natives' of Papua New Guinea to demand independence from Australia. He was charged under the Criminal Code (Qld) which at the time extended to Papua New Guinea. He was convicted and sentenced to two months imprisonment with hard labour. He committed suicide four years after losing his appeal to the High Court (Cooper v. The Queen [1961] HCA 16; (1961) 105 CLR 177) in 1961.
There were no Commonwealth prosecutions for sedition during the Vietnam War era even though one commentator reports that seditious activity occurred (Douglas, 2004, p. 248).
In 2006, police ruled that books promoting suicide bombings and anti-Australian conspiracies can be sold in the Muslim community because they don't breach the new sedition laws. 'Muslim 'books of hate' get OK', Daily Telegraph, 15 May, 2006, p. 1. In response, the Government at first considered stronger sedition laws: 'Sedition laws missing mark on hate books: Vaile', Age, 17 May 2006, p. 10. It later referred the books for a review of their classification and asked for State and Territory opinion on the matter: Classification review to consider hate material, Attorney-General's press release, 9 June 2006. The Classification Review Board banned two of the books (Attorney-General's press release, 11 July 2006)
Further reading
- K. Baker, Mutiny, terrorism, riots and murder: a history of sedition in Australia and New Zealand, Rosenberg Publishing, Dural, NSW, 2006.
- M. Black, Five approaches to reforming the law : 650 years of treason and sedition. ALRAC 2006 conference paper.
- P. Coleman, Obscenity, Blasphemy, Sedition: Censorship in Australia, Jacaranda Press, Brisbane, 1962. Chapter 5 discusses the Customs regulations relating to seditious publications. Call no. 363.310994 COL.
- R. Douglas, 'The Ambiguity of sedition: the trials of William Fardon Burns', Australian Journal of Legal History, vol. 9, 2004, pp. 227-248.
- R. Douglas, 'Saving Australia from sedition: customs, the Attorney-General's Department and the administration of peacetime political censorship', Federal Law Review, vol. 30, 2002, p. 135-175.
- R. Douglas, Law, 'War and liberty: the World War II subversion prosecutions', Melbourne University Law Review, vol. 27, 2003, pp. 65-115.
- G. Griffith, Sedition, Incitement and Vilification: Issues in the Current Debate, Briefing Paper no. 01/2006, NSW Parliamentary Library, Sydney, 2006. Written after the 2005 amendments, this is a thorough analysis of the new legislation.
- M. Head, 'Sedition, is the Star Chamber dead?', Criminal Law Journal, vol. 3, 1979, p. 89-107. Call no. S 345 CRI.
- L. Maher, ''Modernising' the crime of sedition?', Labour History, no. 90, May 2006, pp. 201-209.
- L. Maher, 'The Use and Abuse of Sedition', Sydney Law Review, vol. 14, 1992, pp. 287-316. Call no. S 340 SYD.
- L. Maher, 'Dissent, disloyalty and disaffection: Australia’s last cold war sedition case', Adelaide Law Review, vol. 16, 1994, pp. 1-77. Call no. S 340 ADE.
- Review of Commonwealth Criminal Law (Australia), Fifth interim report, Parl. Paper 194, Canberra, 1991. Call no. 345.94 REV.
- Review of Commonwealth Criminal Law (Australia), Offences relating to the Security and Defence of the Commonwealth (Discussion Paper no. 8), The Review, Canberra, 1988. Call no. S 345.94 REV.
- Review of Sedition Laws (Issues Paper no. 30), Australian Law Reform Commission, Sydney, 2006. Call no. S 340.30994 AUS.
- S. Sorial, 'Sedition and the question of freedom of speech', Current Issues in Criminal Justice, vol. 18, no. 3, March 2007, pp. 431-448.
- R. Trembath, 'It's perfectly obvious that the Commonwealth is after this man.' The press and the prosecution of W. F. Burns for criminal sedition. Paper presented to the Australian Media Traditions Conference, Canberra, 24 November 2005.
- 'The Trial of John Macarthur', Historical Records of New South Wales, vol. VI, pp. 465-478.
- G. Williams, 'Speak up in defence of free speech', Sydney Morning Herald, 30 May 2006.
Major websites
- Caslon Analytics, Sedition and Terror Online. Brief factual overview of sedition law. Has some overseas information.
- Wikipedia, Australian Sedition Law. An unauthored article which seems to rely on sources of variable reliability. Use with care!
Overseas sedition laws
It appears that many countries have such an offence, mainly in legislation but occasionally only at common law. In most democracies, sedition laws are rarely used, but in other countries they continue to be used to suppress the media and there have been several recent incidents of prosecutions.
The following legislation has been found, mainly from English speaking countries, with Internet links to the text, where available.CountrySedition lawBangladeshPenal Code, s. 124A BelizeCriminal Code chapter 101 ss 213-217 Brunei Sedition Act, chapter 24 CanadaCriminal Code s. 59 FijiPenal Code, Cap. 17, s. 65-66 IndiaPenal Code s. 124A IrelandOffences against the State Act 1939, ss. 11, 12, 26 ; Public Safety Act 1927, s.11 KiribatiPenal Code, ch 67, Part IX MalaysiaSedition Act 1948 MaldivesPenal Code New ZealandCrimes Act 1961, ss 81-85. Repealed, on 1 January 2008, by section 5 of the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Act 2007 (2007 No 96).
First prosecution in 30 years in 2006 (against Tim Selwyn).Nigeria Criminal Code Act s. 51 PakistanPenal Code s. 124A Papua New GuineaCriminal Code 1974, ss 44-46 PhilippinesRevised Penal Code, articles 139-142 Sierra Leone Public Order Act 1965, ss 33-37 SingaporeSedition Act 1964 Solomon IslandsSedition Act 1940 Sudan
Criminal Code, articles 66-69; Press Law, article 25TaiwanCriminal Code, article 100 TongaCriminal Offences Act ch. 18, ss 47-48 Trinidad and TobagoSedition Act Tuvalu Penal Code, ch 8, Part IX Uganda Sections 41, 42 and 50 of the Penal Code Act
Sections 39, 40, 42, 43 and 179 of the Penal Code Act (Chapter 120 of the revised Laws of Uganda)
United Kingdom There is probably no offence properly described as 'sedition' in English law, but -
(1) the oral or written publication of words with a seditious intention, and
(2) an agreement to further a seditious intention by doing any act,
have always been common law offences. Source: Law Commission, Codification of the Criminal Law: Treason, Sedition and Allied Offences (Working Paper 72), 1978.United States Smith Act of 1940 (18 U.S. Code § 2384-5) This publication also provides background on sedition laws in some countries:
ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression. Memorandum on the Malaysian Sedition Act 1948. London, July 2003.
Appendix C: Sedition law as at January 2006
Criminal Code Act 1995
80.2 Sedition
Urging the overthrow of the Constitution or Government
(1) A person commits an offence if the person urges another person to overthrow by force or violence:(a) the Constitution; or
(b) the Government of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or
(c) the lawful authority of the Government of the Commonwealth.Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.
(2) Recklessness applies to the element of the offence under subsection (1) that it is:
(a) the Constitution; or
(b) the Government of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or
(c) the lawful authority of the Government of the Commonwealth;that the first-mentioned person urges the other person to overthrow.
Urging interference in Parliamentary elections
(3) A person commits an offence if the person urges another person to interfere by force or violence with lawful processes for an election of a member or members of a House of the Parliament.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.
(4) Recklessness applies to the element of the offence under subsection (3) that it is lawful processes for an election of a member or members of a House of the Parliament that the first-mentioned person urges the other person to interfere with.
Urging violence within the community
(5) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person urges a group or groups (whether distinguished by race, religion, nationality or political opinion) to use force or violence against another group or other groups (as so distinguished); and
(b) the use of the force or violence would threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.
(6) Recklessness applies to the element of the offence under subsection (5) that it is a group or groups that are distinguished by race, religion, nationality or political opinion that the first-mentioned person urges the other person to use force or violence against.
Urging a person to assist the enemy
(7) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person urges another person to engage in conduct; and
(b) the first-mentioned person intends the conduct to assist an organisation or country; and
(c) the organisation or country is:(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and
(ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of paragraph 80.1(1)(e) to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth.Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.
Urging a person to assist those engaged in armed hostilities
(8) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person urges another person to engage in conduct; and
(b) the first-mentioned person intends the conduct to assist an organisation or country; and
(c) the organisation or country is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force.Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.
Defence
(9) Subsections (7) and (8) do not apply to engagement in conduct by way of, or for the purposes of, the provision of aid of a humanitarian nature.
Note 1: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (9). See subsection 13.3(3).
Note 2: There is a defence in section 80.3 for acts done in good faith.80.3 Defence for acts done in good faith
(1) Sections 80.1 and 80.2 do not apply to a person who:
(a) tries in good faith to show that any of the following persons are mistaken in any of his or her counsels, policies or actions:
(i) the Sovereign;
(ii) the Governor-General;
(iii) the Governor of a State;
(iv) the Administrator of a Territory;
(v) an adviser of any of the above;
(vi) a person responsible for the government of another country; or(b) points out in good faith errors or defects in the following, with a view to reforming those errors or defects:
(i) the Government of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;
(ii) the Constitution;
(iii) legislation of the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country;
(iv) the administration of justice of or in the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country; or(c) urges in good faith another person to attempt to lawfully procure a change to any matter established by law, policy or practice in the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country; or
(d) points out in good faith any matters that are producing, or have a tendency to produce, feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups, in order to bring about the removal of those matters; or
(e) does anything in good faith in connection with an industrial dispute or an industrial matter; or
(f) publishes in good faith a report or commentary about a matter of public interest.Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1). See subsection 13.3(3).
(2) In considering a defence under subsection (1), the Court may have regard to any relevant matter, including whether the acts were done:
(a) for a purpose intended to be prejudicial to the safety or defence of the Commonwealth; or
(b) with the intention of assisting an enemy:(i) at war with the Commonwealth; and
(ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of paragraph 80.1(1)(e) to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth; or(c) with the intention of assisting another country, or an organisation, that is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force; or
(d) with the intention of assisting a proclaimed enemy of a proclaimed country (within the meaning of subsection 24AA(4) of the Crimes Act 1914); or
(e) with the intention of assisting persons specified in paragraphs 24AA(2)(a) and (b) of the Crimes Act 1914; or
(f) with the intention of causing violence or creating public disorder or a public disturbance.80.4 Extended geographical jurisdiction for offences
Section 15.4 (extended geographical jurisdiction—category D) applies to an offence against this Division.
80.5 Attorney-General’s consent required
(1) Proceedings for an offence against this Division must not be commenced without the Attorney-General’s written consent.
(2) Despite subsection (1):
(a) a person may be arrested for an offence against this Division; or
(b) a warrant for the arrest of a person for such an offence may be issued and executed;
and the person may be charged, and may be remanded in custody or on bail, but:
(c) no further proceedings may be taken until that consent has been obtained -
For Nair and Co., they know full well that they are breaking the law, in fact, they do so purposefully to challenge the justness of the laws that are in place, seeking to engage in 'Civil Disobedience' inspired by the acts of individuals such as David Henry Thoreau and Gandhi. Unfortunately for Nair and Co., 'Civil Disobedience' just does not resonate within our local context, they will be just seen as fools going against the inevitable.
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Nair asked for it....and he got what he wanted. Everyone's happy :)
I also got asked gahmen to do many things for me.
But why I don't get what I want leh ?
I also want to be happy like Nair , can ?
-
I think you guys who have been yakking about how Gopalan's nationality just missed the point. The whole focus of this episode is to expose how unfair this court has been to True opposition parties liked Chee, how the Lees' has performed, or, underperformed, face to face with Chee, how a judge, the irony of it all, is obviously unjust and how Nair, through his bold words and actions throw the entire event into media light.
Obviously among the forums, there are the PAP Internet brigade, now doing their smear campaign, using Chee, (at least he is still in Singapore though I still think he is a mad dog) against Nair. And unfortunately there are some who truly believe these distorted facts.
I thank Nair to have put the entire exchange between Chee and Lee onto his blog which otherwise will never be know to Singaporean. If they rely on our national newspapers... Check out the headlines then.. the focus was on the rude comments Lee and Chee exchanged.. PLEASE.. the real juicy details are not put down for all to read..
Henceforth, for those reading this, please use your own judgement and evaluate the truth.
-
Originally posted by noisylion:
lionnoisy comes with a clone,which rights is not been reconized by sgforums rules
lionnoisy inventor and co--inventor of makepeace
While many here feel lionnoisy posts far from satisfactory,
pl read more to see how badly lionnoisy want support etc to give
him a little help to post in sgforums.
http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/315326
lionnoisy invented''
makepeace
A sock puppet is an additional OnlineIdentity used by someone who already has another OnlineIdentity for participating in a given community, particularly when done in a non-transparent manner and where the identities interact with each other in some way. The term originates with the metaphor of carrying on a conversation with oneself using a puppet in each hand.
Deception
Use of a SockPuppet is typically frowned on. The social convention against sock puppets arises from the RealWorld. We do not expect to discover that the guy who runs the coffee shop is also our neighbour, but with a fake mustache and beard. In most communities there is at least a social expectation, and sometimes a site policy, that each person will use only a single identity. Thus, use of sock puppets is a DeceptivePractice.
A PenName (or anonymous posting) is about discretionary exposure of personally identifying information, and doesn't exclude the possibility of participating with a measure of integrity since discretion and deception are not at all the same thing. It is fair to expect that we all exercise a certain measure of discretion, but it is hoped that we do not engage in intentional deception. A SockPuppet, on the other hand, is dishonestly represented as being a unique individual, distinct from the existing identities already in use in the community.
Uses
By using several Sock Puppets all posting in favour of an idea, a dishonest person can give the impression that the idea has more grass-roots support than it really has. See also StuffingTheBallotBox, which is a similar problem in a more formal, voting context. Sock puppets make it harder to enforce "one man, one vote."
Sock puppet identities are disruptive in conversation because they are often used so that a person can ask questions of himself and appear to be carrying on a thread between two individuals.
Originally posted by makepeace:
Oz Supreme Judge Justice Betty King
bans TV drama serices & interviews
glorifying those in the gangland war.The bans to prevent
jurors to be affected while the trial of a murder case is in progress.
U hardly expect democratic and free country like Oz will
ban TV programmes .Right?
U wont know TV programmes on Oz gangsters
are so hot there.Right?
u wont know ganglang wars there also so frequent.Right?
1.Judge cuts down(TV) Nine's Underbelly
Milanda Rout | February 12, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23200497-7582,00.html
2.Judge bans 'crime mums' interview
Peter Gregory | April 22, 2008
Barbara Williams and Judith Moran,
the mothers of defendant Evangelos Goussis
and the widow of the murdered Lewis Moran
respectively,were interviewed.
Its damn interesting that this news was under
Entertainment section!!
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/entertainment/judge-bans-underbelly-report/2008/04/21/1208742836107.html?s_cid=rss_news
3.The Morgan family----the story of the murdered
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/moran.family.htm
4.The story of the Boss ,Carl Williams,behind the killing
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/carl.williams.htm
5.u can learn more by seraching Justice Betty King
in www.yahoo.com.au
6.Questions
A.Why the media want to air the interview while the trial
is still on?
B.How are the gang activities in Down Under?
C.Am i look like anti--Oz?
D.How true are the postings in 3 and 4 listed above.
i dunt expect the there are so many details about
Oz gangsters.Can any one tell me more?
Inventors: lionnoisy:
makepeace, a clone of lionnoisy to support himself
MAKEPEACE, MAKE CLONES?
A REPORT ON ATTEMPTED ASTROTURFING AND SOCKPUPPETING BY LIONNOISY
a lion puppet
For those who wondered what happened.
Lionnoisy created a clone called "makepeace" which he used in speakers corner to further his own agenda, trying to give people the impression that there are others out there that would agree with him.
Unfortunately he did a very poor job of hiding it.
This kind of behaviour is called sockpuppeting, ie. creating a false online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company.
A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet.[1]
In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that "sock-puppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company."[2]
The key difference between a sockpuppet and a regular pseudonym (sometimes termed an "alt") is the pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer.
To "flame wars" and "phishing" we can now add "sock puppet." A sock puppet, for those still boning up, is a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet. Recently, a senior editor at The New Republic got in trouble for some particularly colorful sock puppetry.
When Lee Siegel began blogging for The New Republic, he found, as many others have, that Internet posters tend to be fairly outspoken — and a good number of the posters on the blog were harshly critical. An exception was ''sprezzatura,'' who regularly offered extravagant praise. After Mr. Siegel was criticized for his writing about Jon Stewart, host of ''The Daily Show,'' sprezzatura wrote: ''Siegel is brave, brilliant and wittier than Stewart will ever be. Take that, you bunch of immature, abusive sheep.'' A reader charged that sprezzatura was in fact Mr. Siegel, but sprezzatura denied it.
The reader turned out to be right. ...
After making some lame and hasty excuse about his account being hacked, lionnoisy suddenly abandoned all this threads in which him being sockpuppeting was being mentioned. Unfortunately his excuse cannot stand up to logic as he was seen responding to and talking back TO HIS OWN ACCOUNT.
This is what happened:
29th April 0932hrs a "user" called "makepeace" that had never posted before created a lionnoisy-sounding titled thread called "Oz Judge ban TV drama & interview glorify gangland wars "
Already suspisions were raised because the structure and phrasing of the title was signature of lionnoisy. The first post by this "makepeace" was as such:
Originally posted by makepeace:
Oz Supreme Judge Justice Betty King
bans TV drama serices & interviews
glorifying those in the gangland war.The bans to prevent
jurors to be affected while the trial of a murder case is in progress.
U hardly expect democratic and free country like Oz will
ban TV programmes .Right?
U wont know TV programmes on Oz gangsters
are so hot there.Right?
u wont know ganglang wars there also so frequent.Right?
1.Judge cuts down(TV) Nine's Underbelly
Milanda Rout | February 12, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23200497-7582,00.html
2.Judge bans 'crime mums' interview
Peter Gregory | April 22, 2008
Barbara Williams and Judith Moran,
the mothers of defendant Evangelos Goussis
and the widow of the murdered Lewis Moran
respectively,were interviewed.
Its damn interesting that this news was under
Entertainment section!!
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/entertainment/judge-bans-underbelly-report/2008/04/21/1208742836107.html?s_cid=rss_news
3.The Morgan family----the story of the murdered
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/moran.family.htm
4.The story of the Boss ,Carl Williams,behind the killing
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/carl.williams.htm
5.u can learn more by seraching Justice Betty King
in www.yahoo.com.au
6.Questions
A.Why the media want to air the interview while the trial
is still on?
B.How are the gang activities in Down Under?
C.Am i look like anti--Oz?
D.How true are the postings in 3 and 4 listed above.
i dunt expect the there are so many details about
Oz gangsters.Can any one tell me more?
Note that other then for the user name, this post is virtually indistinguishable from the countless of other lionnoisy posts we can compare it with. The excessive reliance on the media, posting of hyperlinks, using warped logic that takes issues out of their context, and most tellingly the horrible english which make typos and grammatical errors right down to what lionnoisy would EXACTLY make is exactly what you'd expect from lionnoisy.
Hence lionnoisy must have been someone disappointed because after 20 minutes still nobody bothered to reply to his post under makepeace. Hence he decided to bump his own thread.
But after a few lackluster replies, he finally decided to "talk" to makepeace
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
3.The Morgan family----the story of the murdered
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/moran.family.htm
4.The story of the Boss ,Carl Williams,behind the killing
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/carl.williams.htm
I cant believe there are so many killings
in the above links !!!
More excited than Holloywood movies!!
Note the bad acting, where he pretended to be "excited" and "surprised" about what he wrote himself.
Now this is the funny part, if his account was really hacked as he claimed it to be, he would certainly not be replying back to his "hacked" account so happily in such a way.
But in any case when he was exposed he made this very funny, frantic and desperate post trying to suddenly divorce himself from the actions of his sockpuppetry by claiming he was hacked. Unfortunately all a basic look at the thread will reveal what really happened, and that is nothing other then lionnoisy was caught red-handed sockpuppeting.
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Why did u check IP and English of forumers?
i just know my acct has been hijacked and u post it!!
It seems u are faster than me?Looks so strange!!
Looks like it is a cyber crime and /or frame up.
Hv anyone(u know who i mean) hacked into my e mails and computers ?
Do i have to hire armed guards to stay outside my
pigeon hole?
I am seeking helps from ISD,CIA,FBI,MI 5 and 6,
PRC Kong Ang, etc to check who hijack my acct
and make me appearing as ''makepeace'' after
i click submit.How safe in this forum??
I will buy you Ya Kun coffee if your info can lead to
catch the criminal,
Forums owners and mods are hereby notified my formal ,written and distressing complaints to cyber crimes!!
Another paethetic, and desperate reply from him when he was cornered:
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
oh it is good.Then can help me saving time to see counsellors How to get rid of computers addicts!!bye
Those who want to see what happened can go here:
http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/315326
And some screencaps, so the evidence is preserved:
"mysterous" makepeace appears:
and of course his own excited and poorly acted "reply" to his own clone.
and his own desperate and feeble attempts to wriggle out of the situtation:
LOL, what a joker!
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Originally posted by noisylion:
lionnoisy comes with a clone,which rights is not been reconized by sgforums rules
lionnoisy inventor and co--inventor of makepeace
While many here feel lionnoisy posts far from satisfactory,
pl read more to see how badly lionnoisy want support etc to give
him a little help to post in sgforums.
http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/315326
lionnoisy invented''
makepeace
A sock puppet is an additional OnlineIdentity used by someone who already has another OnlineIdentity for participating in a given community, particularly when done in a non-transparent manner and where the identities interact with each other in some way. The term originates with the metaphor of carrying on a conversation with oneself using a puppet in each hand.
Deception
Use of a SockPuppet is typically frowned on. The social convention against sock puppets arises from the RealWorld. We do not expect to discover that the guy who runs the coffee shop is also our neighbour, but with a fake mustache and beard. In most communities there is at least a social expectation, and sometimes a site policy, that each person will use only a single identity. Thus, use of sock puppets is a DeceptivePractice.
A PenName (or anonymous posting) is about discretionary exposure of personally identifying information, and doesn't exclude the possibility of participating with a measure of integrity since discretion and deception are not at all the same thing. It is fair to expect that we all exercise a certain measure of discretion, but it is hoped that we do not engage in intentional deception. A SockPuppet, on the other hand, is dishonestly represented as being a unique individual, distinct from the existing identities already in use in the community.
Uses
By using several Sock Puppets all posting in favour of an idea, a dishonest person can give the impression that the idea has more grass-roots support than it really has. See also StuffingTheBallotBox, which is a similar problem in a more formal, voting context. Sock puppets make it harder to enforce "one man, one vote."
Sock puppet identities are disruptive in conversation because they are often used so that a person can ask questions of himself and appear to be carrying on a thread between two individuals.
Originally posted by makepeace:
Oz Supreme Judge Justice Betty King
bans TV drama serices & interviews
glorifying those in the gangland war.The bans to prevent
jurors to be affected while the trial of a murder case is in progress.
U hardly expect democratic and free country like Oz will
ban TV programmes .Right?
U wont know TV programmes on Oz gangsters
are so hot there.Right?
u wont know ganglang wars there also so frequent.Right?
1.Judge cuts down(TV) Nine's Underbelly
Milanda Rout | February 12, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23200497-7582,00.html
2.Judge bans 'crime mums' interview
Peter Gregory | April 22, 2008
Barbara Williams and Judith Moran,
the mothers of defendant Evangelos Goussis
and the widow of the murdered Lewis Moran
respectively,were interviewed.
Its damn interesting that this news was under
Entertainment section!!
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/entertainment/judge-bans-underbelly-report/2008/04/21/1208742836107.html?s_cid=rss_news
3.The Morgan family----the story of the murdered
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/moran.family.htm
4.The story of the Boss ,Carl Williams,behind the killing
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/carl.williams.htm
5.u can learn more by seraching Justice Betty King
in www.yahoo.com.au
6.Questions
A.Why the media want to air the interview while the trial
is still on?
B.How are the gang activities in Down Under?
C.Am i look like anti--Oz?
D.How true are the postings in 3 and 4 listed above.
i dunt expect the there are so many details about
Oz gangsters.Can any one tell me more?
Inventors: lionnoisy:
makepeace, a clone of lionnoisy to support himself
MAKEPEACE, MAKE CLONES?
A REPORT ON ATTEMPTED ASTROTURFING AND SOCKPUPPETING BY LIONNOISY
a lion puppet
For those who wondered what happened.
Lionnoisy created a clone called "makepeace" which he used in speakers corner to further his own agenda, trying to give people the impression that there are others out there that would agree with him.
Unfortunately he did a very poor job of hiding it.
This kind of behaviour is called sockpuppeting, ie. creating a false online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company.
After making some lame and hasty excuse about his account being hacked, lionnoisy suddenly abandoned all this threads in which him being sockpuppeting was being mentioned. Unfortunately his excuse cannot stand up to logic as he was seen responding to and talking back TO HIS OWN ACCOUNT.
This is what happened:
29th April 0932hrs a "user" called "makepeace" that had never posted before created a lionnoisy-sounding titled thread called "Oz Judge ban TV drama & interview glorify gangland wars "
Already suspisions were raised because the structure and phrasing of the title was signature of lionnoisy. The first post by this "makepeace" was as such:
Note that other then for the user name, this post is virtually indistinguishable from the countless of other lionnoisy posts we can compare it with. The excessive reliance on the media, posting of hyperlinks, using warped logic that takes issues out of their context, and most tellingly the horrible english which make typos and grammatical errors right down to what lionnoisy would EXACTLY make is exactly what you'd expect from lionnoisy.
Hence lionnoisy must have been someone disappointed because after 20 minutes still nobody bothered to reply to his post under makepeace. Hence he decided to bump his own thread.
But after a few lackluster replies, he finally decided to "talk" to makepeace
Note the bad acting, where he pretended to be "excited" and "surprised" about what he wrote himself.
Now this is the funny part, if his account was really hacked as he claimed it to be, he would certainly not be replying back to his "hacked" account so happily in such a way.
But in any case when he was exposed he made this very funny, frantic and desperate post trying to suddenly divorce himself from the actions of his sockpuppetry by claiming he was hacked. Unfortunately all a basic look at the thread will reveal what really happened, and that is nothing other then lionnoisy was caught red-handed sockpuppeting.
Another paethetic, and desperate reply from him when he was cornered:
Those who want to see what happened can go here:
http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/315326
And some screencaps, so the evidence is preserved:
"mysterous" makepeace appears:
and of course his own excited and poorly acted "reply" to his own clone.
and his own desperate and feeble attempts to wriggle out of the situtation:
LOL, what a joker!
Tsk tsk, why some guys so boh liao one ?
Too much time, not enough money issit ?
/me shakes head.
-
Dear forumers,
If you feel that lionnoisy is spamming the forum with nonsense by just cutting and pasting without any discussion.
Please send an email to Jason or FireIce to have him ban.
I find that him spamming the thread with a dozen of post without any discussions is counter productive to any proper discussion.
Thank you.
-
i wonder if copy and paste culture is a result of our education system
good job MOE
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
i wonder if copy and paste culture is a result of our education system
good job MOE
copy and paste culture is not present in NUS Final Year Projects, nor in a majority of the project papers.From that, you can conclude something about lionnoisy
-
Originally posted by eagle:
copy and paste culture is not present in NUS Final Year Projects, nor in a majority of the project papers.From that, you can conclude something about lionnoisy
lionnoisy is so smart, he even pasted the further readings section, so that forumers who are interested can source for these books and read them.
I think I will jot down those references and go to the national library for further research.
hail lionnoisy!!!
-
he looks so happy coming out of court.... could it be that bSingapore fell right into his trap?
or maybe he is just happy to expose to the world how dishonorable some people are....
US blogger released on bail in Singapore
SINGAPORE (AFP) — A US-based blogger who allegedly accused a Singapore judge of "prostituting herself" was released on bail Thursday and had his passport confiscated.
A judge ordered Gopalan Nair, a former Singapore lawyer who is now a US citizen, to be released on 5,000 dollars bail (3,676 US) after more than four days in custody.
A prosecutor told the court there was no need for him to be detained while further investigations were carried out.
Nair, 58, who declined comment to reporters, is due back in court for another hearing next Thursday.
He was arrested in the city-state on Saturday and charged Monday with insulting a public servant, his lawyer Chia Ti Lik earlier told AFP.
According to a court document, Nair is charged with insulting Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean last week by sending an email which said she "was throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders".
-
The comments from Yankee Embassy trouble me.
It looks like they will interfere our domestic affairs
STimes 06.06.2008 p 3
''Said the (US Embassy) spokesman:
''The embassy continues to follow the case closely.
The United States consistently advocates freedom
of expression,including the Internet.''
2.Nair is not a blogger next door they think.
He is a US lawyer and admits in his own words that almost
all of his blogs since Dec 2006 defamed Lees,at least
in Singaporean sense.
http://www.singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Friday, May 30, 2008
Lee Kuan Yew: If bloggers who defame me identify themselves, I will sue them!
I repeat the threat that Lee Kuan Yew had made on day two of the show trial during the last 3 days in the High Court. When asked by Dr. Chee whether he will sue those who write on the Internet defamations against him, I mean defamations in the Singaporean sense, his definitive unequivocal answer was that he will sue them. There is no doubt in the Singaporean sense, I have defamed him and his Prime Minister son, not only in my last blog post but in almost all my blog posts since my blog's inception in December 2006.
-
pl bear with me to post ST article here.Gopalan Nair
wanted to test LKY resolution made in court.
Therefore,now he can eat free curry rice.He claimed in his
blogs published in ST today at p3,that curry is provided
in Queenstown Prison.What was the taste of curry in Central Police
Station where he was remanded?
MM: A lie against Govt will be pursued - even in cyberspace Jeremy Au Yong Wed, May 28, 2008
The Straits Times
<!--
function openEmailWindow(emailToFriendForm) {
var emailToFriendPageURL = emailToFriendForm.emailToFriendPageURL.value;
emailToFriendForm.action = emailToFriendPageURL;
emailToFriendForm.target="_blank";
emailToFriendForm.submit();
}
// -->
ANY lie that questioned the Government's integrity must be fought, said Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew yesterday.
He would pursue even those who perpetrated such lies in cyberspace, if the authorities could pinpoint the culprit.MM Lee launched into the subject from the witness stand in response to a quote cited by the Singapore Democratic Party's (SDP) lawyer M. Ravi during cross-examination.
''Never chase a lie. Let it alone and it will run itself to death.' Do you agree with that?' asked Mr Ravi.
MM Lee replied that he did not, even though Western journalists had been urging such a view on him for years.'I take a contrary view, because I know the mentality and the attitudes of the people in Singapore - and they know me by now, that if anybody impugns the integrity of the Government, of which I was the prime minister, I must sue,' he said.
'And I must demand that either the court finds that those defamatory words (are) true, in which case I am demolished, or there's a penalty.'
When further pressed on the point, MM Lee said that his political credo was that every lie related to the integrity, honour and rectitude of the Government had to be nailed:
'This Government has lasted through 11 general elections, from 1959 to 2006. Nobody has said the elections were rigged, not even the SDP.
'I have put myself before the public, my Government, on seven of those general elections. I personally led the Government and I know that that was possible only because we run a clean, efficient, effective, competent Government that works to the benefit of the people.'
For the moment, however, he had no choice but to tolerate attacks on the Government that were posted on the Internet.
'But if anybody puts his name in print or verbally identifies himself out of court with those remarks, is challenging my integrity, (and) is prepared to stand on his credibility, we will need to have it resolved,' he added.
When asked by Mr Ravi if he would pursue those online if the law could capture the culprits, MM Lee said that he would.
From questions of integrity, the cross-examination turned to what MM Lee thought of Dr Chee's character.
After MM Lee, at one point, described Dr Chee as a 'near psychopath', Mr Ravi asked if he took the SDP chief's comments seriously.
'I have to,' said MM Lee.
'Because he takes it very seriously, enough to tell the public to believe him. If I did not take him seriously and he keeps on repeating this, and others repeat this, at the end of the day, I and the party that I used to lead will be totally destroyed.
'Am I being asked to say that your client's(lion note---LKY refer to Chee Soon Juan) credibility is so low that I should ignore whatever he says?'
As to whether most people would believe what Dr Chee said, MM Lee pointed to the results of the May 2006 General Election, where the SDP won 20 per cent of the valid votes in Sembawang GRC.
'Obviously, 20 per cent of the people in Sembawang decided that what Mr Chee and his supporters were saying in the campaign, repeatedly, that the Singapore government is run like the National Kidney Foundation, was put to the test.
'So here's 20 per cent in Sembawang. And that's with vigorous campaigning on the PAP's side,' he said.
'So you cannot dismiss the effect of such repeated attempts to discredit the reputation of the leaders of the PAP.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIES HAVE TO BE CHASED DOWN
'I take a contrary view, because I know the mentality and the attitudes of the people in Singapore - and they know me by now, that if anybody impugns the integrity of the Government, of which I was the prime minister, I must sue.'
MM LEE, responding to a quote cited by SDP lawyer M. Ravi on leaving a lie alone so that it would run itself to deathGAINING THE PEOPLE'S TRUST
'I have put myself before the public, my Government, on seven of those general elections. I personally led the Government and I know that that was possible only because we run a clean, efficient, effective, competent Government that works to the benefit of the people.'
MM LEE, on the need to nail every lie related to the integrity of the GovernmentSLIPPERY SLOPE OF SLANDER
'I have to...Because he takes it very seriously, enough to tell the public to believe him. If I did not take him seriously and he keeps on repeating this, and others repeat this, at the end of the day, I and the party that I used to lead will be totally destroyed.'
MM LEE, on taking Dr Chee's comments seriouslyhttp://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20080528-67336.html
-
can u believe a 58 years old lawyer with 25 years practice in SG
and US says this?
Is he a professional blogger cum lawyer?If u are free this weekend.
pl go thro his bogs for the past 6 months.Jurisdiction of Sedition Act
is 6 months.Only Spore AG ,like Aussie ,can order prosecution.No worry.
Share some interesting here.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Even if I had wished every day that someone murdered Lee Kuan Yew, his Prime Minister son and their entire family! Yet, I am not guilty.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Listen to this. Even I had wished every day, that someone would please drop a ten ton Weapon of Mass Destruction over the house of Lee Kuan Yew in No. 1 Oxley Road, Singapore and killed them all instantly; Lee Kuan Yew and all, dictators all of them; turning them into roast flesh; still I am not guilty under the law! Indeed I will rejoice and pop a bottle of Dom Perignon 1959 and party all night!
This fact may be shocking to you but true nevertheless.
I am saying this in relation to the ongoing suspense over the disappearance of Mr. Mas Selamat Kasatri, the hero who escaped from Lee's prison Whitely Detention Center.
The Lee Administration keeps up the drum beat day after day, telling us that Mr. Kastari, the escaped prisoner is guilty of all sorts of heinous crimes, like wanting to fly an aeroplane filled with explosives and crash it into Changi Airport, Singapore; and therefore Lee has a right to detain him in Whitley Detention Center Singapore without trial for an indefinite period. Does Lee think the entire Singapore population are imbeciles without any brains who can be told any cock and bull story and lock up anyone he pleases?
Well, will he lock me up because I have always wished to see him and his entire family as dead meat?...........................
As for me, I would prefer that someone flew a plane from Selatar Airport runway 030, flying north into the wind, then over the water, flight level three thousand feet, then turned it south over the island straight over Oxley Rise No. One and crashed it there, just when Lee Kuan Yew was having dinner at 6 pm eating his Char Kwey Teow! Wouldn't that be nice!
But even after my saying all this, I cannot be arrested. Not in any country where there is rule of law, like in California, USA.(Lion note:OMG!!Mr Nair now surrenders this ONLY protection unconditionally and wholly,by walking into Lion mouth.He forgets this is also Lion Kingdom!!)
And neither should Mr. Mas Salamat Kastari, the hero of Whitley.
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: [email protected]
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/ -
A sock puppet is an additional OnlineIdentity used by someone who already has another OnlineIdentity for participating in a given community, particularly when done in a non-transparent manner and where the identities interact with each other in some way. The term originates with the metaphor of carrying on a conversation with oneself using a puppet in each hand.
Deception
Use of a SockPuppet is typically frowned on. The social convention against sock puppets arises from the RealWorld. We do not expect to discover that the guy who runs the coffee shop is also our neighbour, but with a fake mustache and beard. In most communities there is at least a social expectation, and sometimes a site policy, that each person will use only a single identity. Thus, use of sock puppets is a DeceptivePractice.
A PenName (or anonymous posting) is about discretionary exposure of personally identifying information, and doesn't exclude the possibility of participating with a measure of integrity since discretion and deception are not at all the same thing. It is fair to expect that we all exercise a certain measure of discretion, but it is hoped that we do not engage in intentional deception. A SockPuppet, on the other hand, is dishonestly represented as being a unique individual, distinct from the existing identities already in use in the community.
Uses
By using several Sock Puppets all posting in favour of an idea, a dishonest person can give the impression that the idea has more grass-roots support than it really has. See also StuffingTheBallotBox, which is a similar problem in a more formal, voting context. Sock puppets make it harder to enforce "one man, one vote."
Sock puppet identities are disruptive in conversation because they are often used so that a person can ask questions of himself and appear to be carrying on a thread between two individuals.
Originally posted by makepeace:
Oz Supreme Judge Justice Betty King
bans TV drama serices & interviews
glorifying those in the gangland war.The bans to prevent
jurors to be affected while the trial of a murder case is in progress.
U hardly expect democratic and free country like Oz will
ban TV programmes .Right?
U wont know TV programmes on Oz gangsters
are so hot there.Right?
u wont know ganglang wars there also so frequent.Right?
1.Judge cuts down(TV) Nine's Underbelly
Milanda Rout | February 12, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23200497-7582,00.html
2.Judge bans 'crime mums' interview
Peter Gregory | April 22, 2008
Barbara Williams and Judith Moran,
the mothers of defendant Evangelos Goussis
and the widow of the murdered Lewis Moran
respectively,were interviewed.
Its damn interesting that this news was under
Entertainment section!!
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/entertainment/judge-bans-underbelly-report/2008/04/21/1208742836107.html?s_cid=rss_news
3.The Morgan family----the story of the murdered
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/moran.family.htm
4.The story of the Boss ,Carl Williams,behind the killing
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/carl.williams.htm
5.u can learn more by seraching Justice Betty King
in www.yahoo.com.au
6.Questions
A.Why the media want to air the interview while the trial
is still on?
B.How are the gang activities in Down Under?
C.Am i look like anti--Oz?
D.How true are the postings in 3 and 4 listed above.
i dunt expect the there are so many details about
Oz gangsters.Can any one tell me more?
Inventors: lionnoisy:
makepeace, a clone of lionnoisy to support himself
MAKEPEACE, MAKE CLONES?
A REPORT ON ATTEMPTED ASTROTURFING AND SOCKPUPPETING BY LIONNOISY
a lion puppet
For those who wondered what happened.
Lionnoisy created a clone called "makepeace" which he used in speakers corner to further his own agenda, trying to give people the impression that there are others out there that would agree with him.
Unfortunately he did a very poor job of hiding it.
-
Go Here To Learn How to Make Sack Puppets
A Sock is a wonderful thing. It can warm a foot, that's for sure. Better yet, it can become a zillion different critters. Sock puppets are easy to make.
All you need to do is start with a sock.
1. Put the sock on your hand so that your fingers and thumb are in the toe and the back of your wrist is in the heel.
2. To make room for your puppet's mouth, make a slit in the sock between your thumb and fingers.
3. Cut an oval 3 inches across and 5 inches long...make that 2 ovals, one of posterboard or milk bottle plastic-something semi rigid and one of fabric.
4. Glue the fabric oval to the posterboard (rigid) oval with white glue.
5. After the glue has begun to dry, fold them in half the short way.
6. Sew folded oval into your sock. Finally, your puppet can talk.
7. Now the fun begins! What your puppet becomes depends on you. Think eyes, hair, ears, hats, moustaches, beards, eyebrows, noses, collars, neckties, shirts and dresses.
These puppets are fun and extremely loveable. Try Them.
-
A sock puppet, for those still boning up, is a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet. Recently, a senior editor at The New Republic got in trouble for some particularly colorful sock puppetry.
When Lee Siegel began blogging for The New Republic, he found, as many others have, that Internet posters tend to be fairly outspoken — and a good number of the posters on the blog were harshly critical. An exception was ''sprezzatura,'' who regularly offered extravagant praise. After Mr. Siegel was criticized for his writing about Jon Stewart, host of ''The Daily Show,'' sprezzatura wrote: ''Siegel is brave, brilliant and wittier than Stewart will ever be. Take that, you bunch of immature, abusive sheep.'' A reader charged that sprezzatura was in fact Mr. Siegel, but sprezzatura denied it.
The reader turned out to be right. ...
-
Sock Puppeting Caught
A senior editor at The New Republic was suspended and his blog was shut down on Friday after revelations that he was involved in anonymously attacking readers who criticized his posts.
Lee Siegel, creator of the Lee Siegel on Culture blog for tnr.com, was suspended indefinitely from the magazine after a reader accused him of using a “sock puppet,” or Internet alias, to attack his critics in the comments section of his blog. An editor’s apology replaced the blog on the Web site, announcing that the blog would no longer be published and noting that The New Republic deeply regretted “misleading” its readers.
Franklin Foer, the New Republic’s editor, said in an interview that he first became aware of the accusations against Mr. Siegel on Thursday afternoon, after a colleague noticed a comment in the Talkback section of Mr. Siegel’s blog that accused him of using the alias “sprezzatura” to defend his articles and assail his critics.
That comment, posted by a reader named “jhschwartz” on Aug. 27, said that “sprezzatura appears only to weigh in on TNR forums to admonish and taunt posters who dislike Lee Siegel” before concluding, “I would say with 99% confidence that ‘sprezzatura’ is a Siegel alias.”
“We launched an investigation,” Mr. Foer said. He added that he was confident that sprezzatura’s posts were written with Mr. Siegel’s “full cooperation,” but declined to say whether the alias was used by Mr. Siegel himself because the affair was still under investigation. “As soon as the facts of the case became clear to me on Friday, we closed down the blog and made an announcement.” Mr. Foer said that while he liked to see blog posts before they were published, Mr. Siegel did not have an editor assigned to his blog entries.
In a statement by e-mail, Mr. Siegel said, “I’m sorry about my prank, which was certainly not designed to harm a magazine that has been my happy intellectual home for many years.”
Other bloggers noted the disclosure about Mr. Siegel. Ezra Klein, a blogger who had tangled with him, wrote in his blog on Friday, “The temptation to create a new persona and rally support for yourself in comments can be almost overwhelming.” But Mr. Klein said that most bloggers “resist the urge, take the lashing and move on.”
Mr. Siegel became a polarizing figure, coining the term “blogofascism” in the midst of a debate over The New Republic’s support of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman in the Connecticut primary.
The user named sprezzatura, an Italian term for studied carelessness, posted comments that were hyperbolic even in the blogging environment. After readers criticized Mr. Siegel for his post about the host of “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart, sprezzatura wrote: “Siegel is brave, brilliant and wittier than Stewart will ever be. Take that, you bunch of immature, abusive sheep.” (A later comment deplored other readers’ “inability to withstand a difference in taste without resorting to personal insult.”)
Mr. Siegel is not the first mainstream blogger to use an Internet alias or the first to be unmasked. In April, The Los Angeles Times suspended the blog of a reporter, Michael A. Hiltzik, after he admitted using aliases on his own blog and other Web sites. Mr. Foer said that as print publications engage the Internet, it can be difficult to clearly define and apply journalistic principles. “Obviously, this all happened in a newer medium where the rules are more ambiguous,” he said. “But we simply don’t tolerate the misleading of our readers.”
-
i like the puppet.So Q!!
I invite u to read a Indian-- born US democrat, a jouralist of 4 decades
and covered almost 135 Third World countries,replied to the learned
Gopalan Nair.Despite this journalist's personal problems with STimes,
he still praise LKY and SG.
Mr Pranay Gupte knows the limitations of player and observer.
A player will be penalised,though free curry provided,even
the player thinks he is above the little red dot laws and just a blogger.
Nair claimed he has many democracy hungry audiences
in SG!!
start of quote:
Monday, April 25, 2005
Why Pranay Gupte admires Lee Kuan Yew
Below is an email Pranay Gupte wrote in response to a message he received after the post regarding his dismissal from the Straits Times.
(lion note:http://www.pranaygupte.com/article.php?index=199 )
It is quoted in full with names present and email address absent.
From: Pranay Gupte
To: Gopalan Nair
Dear Gopalan:
Thanks for your note. Let me emphasize at the outset that, as a foreign journalist, it's not my place to interfere in the conduct of domestic policy in Singapore. I am a professional observer, not a player, and it's my job to listen to all points of view and report as truthfully as I can. Whatever my private views as an Indian-born US democrat, these do not affect my journalism.
That having been said let me address your question as to why I am an admirer of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew.
I've long been an admirer of Mr. Lee because of the way he set about nation-building. As I see it, three things were emphasized right from the start: the rule of law; developing strong institutions of public governance; and a corruption free society. To this was added a vital element: secularism in what is a multi-racial society.
My admiration flows from how Mr. Lee stuck to this plan despite overwhelming odds. When Singapore began its nation-building experiment nearly 40 years ago, the fashion in the former colonial territories of the world was to pursue statist socialism. I have covered virtually all of the Third World's 135 countries during my four-decades-long journalistic career, and let me tell you that socialism did not work out. Hence, the sad, sad spectacle of dozens of failed states in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America. Eastern Europe, of course, was sui generis, and its countries are still paying an enormous economic and social price for pursuing communism.
As I see it, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's model of economic development and nation-building has worked out. Granted, Singapore's scale is small. But demography and geography have less to do with successful nation-building than skillful leadership in the public interest. Mr. Lee and his associates demonstrated such leadership; other developing countries did not have such visionary leaders.
I have learned during my lifetime in journalism that societies and nations take time to evolve. The sort of participatory democracy that many Singaporeans yearn for will undoubtedly come. It's bound to be a healthier system because of the foundations that were laid by Mr. Lee.
Thanks again for writing to me.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Pranay
[Source: www.pranaygupte.com]http://singasingapore.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_archive.html
-
My admiration flows from how Mr. Lee stuck to this plan despite overwhelming odds.
What overwhelming odds?
Chee Soon Juan is against overwhelming odds.
JBJ is against overwhelming odds.
Lee Kuan Yew overwhelming odds?
-
damn!
i have to scroll thru all those trash by lionnoisy to get to your post.
-
why so many pple come to read my trash,among others postings?
Here one more for others to read ,but not for u to read.
Lets guess what will happen.
This gentleman claimed he is liable to SG gavaman and Law Society
a good S$200k and he just laughed at the two org in the end of 2007.
i dunt know if these 2 orgs would reopen the outstanding amounts.
Good luck to him.
It would appear that the total amount I was required to pay the Law Society and the Singapore government would appear to be nearly $200,000.00.
To date I have not paid a cent. I refuse to pay. And by the way, I have been to Singapore several times, the latest being this year from Nov 1, 2007 to Nov 13, 2007. They have not taken any steps against me to recover their money.
I wonder why. Or is the reason why they do not go after me is because I am not afraid of them.
Any lawyer reading this blog should perhaps ask the Singapore Law Society about their loss of this huge sum of money, which I have refused to pay.http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2007/12/singapore-law-society-of-singapore-vs.html
-
why so many pple come to read my trash,among others postings?
I only read first few sentences of every post. Every long article I just scroll through to see if any one who has read replied anything.
And btw, it's irritating. Better if you just post the link if you want to post so many articles. 1 or 2 is fine, but you are getting excessive. You made many get disinterested in the thread, and made many posts lost in between your spam. If that's your goal, you succeeded.
