This blog firebombed – fake “paklah” banned
This blog was firebombed with postings by an impostor impersonating variously as “paklah”, “rafidah”, “mahathir” and last night ”jeffooi”.
The “impostor” postings had started three days ago, first using quite strong but still tolerably offensive language (as if the start of a Malaysian political satire or parody like the previous UK Private Eye series on the spoof letters from Denis, the husband of then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher) escalating to very offensive, vulgar and insulting language against individual personalities on both sides of the political divide, even concoting to incriminate Jeffooi in three “impostor” items last night with racist postings.
These postings come from the same person as verified by the IP used, which are all screen-captured.
The fake “paklah” has been banned from this blog. His posting, at 8.56 pm last night, preceded the three fake “Jeffooi” postings here, here and here, at 9.04 pm, 9.12 pm and 9.21 pm which sought to portray Jeffooi as anti-Malay, with him spouting hate sentiments against the Malays. Jeffooi has confirmed that he never sent the three postings to this blog.
I have been agonizing whether to reproduce these four postings by the Impostor to show the nature of irresponsible writings that are perpetrated on the Internet and as an object lesson to all netizens on the need to develop greater discernment so as not to fall easy prey to irresponsible internet postings, such as reacting rashly without verification. However, I have decided against polluting the blogosphere with such poison.
I would advise the imposter and others like-minded to refrain and desist from such irresponsible behaviour. Let us cherish the space provided by the blogosphere for a frank and even vehement exchange of views, where we can disagree and disagree passionately but it must never degenerate into vulgarity, crudity or downright falsehoods.
I was to blog a response to Mack Zul last night when I was distracted by the escapades of the Imposter.
I thank Mack Zul for starting an interesting debate with his posting, Kit Siang’s poll results are faulty and thus irrelevant, on September 30, 2005, Wollongabba who drew attention to an almost similar corruption poll by the official Malaysian government portal, other blog responses like here and here, as well as many useful comments on this blog.
Mack Zul’s reservations about the bias and reliability of internet polling are valid and justified, particularly the bias of self-selection and non-representativeness of the people polled. It reflects a larger debate world-wide about the relevance of internet polling.
I do not agree however with his summary dismissal of internet polling, even of the type hosted on this blog, provided its bias and limitations are made specific – that it does not claim to reflect the population at large but only the visitors to the blog.
I believe polling on blogs, whether this or others, have their relevance and are not just-for-fun exercises, provided the bias. and limitations are properly discounted.
In this connection, the result of the corruption poll on this blog can be usefully compared to a similar corruption poll on the official Malaysian portal. As at 1.35 pm, the result of the poll on this blog is as follows:
How well is the govt doing in its fight against corruption?
Selection Votes
Very Well 1% 10
Well 0% 0
Good Enough 0% 3
Could be better 5% 53
Pretty Average 2% 24
Borderline Case 4% 45
Could Be Worse 4% 40
Disappointing 20% 208
Very Disappointing 24%
249
What fight? 38% 394
1,026 votes total
Poll results are subject to error. Pollhost.com does not pre-screen the content of polls created by Pollhost customers.
The result of the myGovernment portal on corruption just visited is as follows:
Do you feel that corruption in the public sector has been reduced?
Strong agree 2.95% (15)
Agree 9.82% (50)
Strongly disagree 33.20% (169)
Disagree 51.47% (262)
No comment 2.55% (13)
Total Vote: 509
Start Date: 26/09/2005
End Date: 10/10/2005
There is a remarkable congruence in the two polls – with 82% of 1,026 votes in this blog poll while 84.67 per cent of 507 votes on the myGovernment poll expressing disappointment at the anti-corruption outcomes. I think such congruence in these two online polling, despite their bias and limitations, is most remarkable and deserve attention – even at parliamentary level.
Mack said he could vote more than once, that all that is needed is to disconnect and reconnect Streamyx as to obtain a different IP. I tried it last night and the rejection “We're sorry, you've already voted in this poll!” appeared.
I am sure, however, that just as website can be hacked, internet polls can be compromised.
Finally, as former Inspector-General of Police Hanif Omar had not continued with his column on his 34 SMS corruption polling in the Sunday Star today, he should have more time to digest the comments posted on the thread on this blog arising from his article last Sunday for his next column.
The “impostor” postings had started three days ago, first using quite strong but still tolerably offensive language (as if the start of a Malaysian political satire or parody like the previous UK Private Eye series on the spoof letters from Denis, the husband of then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher) escalating to very offensive, vulgar and insulting language against individual personalities on both sides of the political divide, even concoting to incriminate Jeffooi in three “impostor” items last night with racist postings.
These postings come from the same person as verified by the IP used, which are all screen-captured.
The fake “paklah” has been banned from this blog. His posting, at 8.56 pm last night, preceded the three fake “Jeffooi” postings here, here and here, at 9.04 pm, 9.12 pm and 9.21 pm which sought to portray Jeffooi as anti-Malay, with him spouting hate sentiments against the Malays. Jeffooi has confirmed that he never sent the three postings to this blog.
I have been agonizing whether to reproduce these four postings by the Impostor to show the nature of irresponsible writings that are perpetrated on the Internet and as an object lesson to all netizens on the need to develop greater discernment so as not to fall easy prey to irresponsible internet postings, such as reacting rashly without verification. However, I have decided against polluting the blogosphere with such poison.
I would advise the imposter and others like-minded to refrain and desist from such irresponsible behaviour. Let us cherish the space provided by the blogosphere for a frank and even vehement exchange of views, where we can disagree and disagree passionately but it must never degenerate into vulgarity, crudity or downright falsehoods.
I was to blog a response to Mack Zul last night when I was distracted by the escapades of the Imposter.
I thank Mack Zul for starting an interesting debate with his posting, Kit Siang’s poll results are faulty and thus irrelevant, on September 30, 2005, Wollongabba who drew attention to an almost similar corruption poll by the official Malaysian government portal, other blog responses like here and here, as well as many useful comments on this blog.
Mack Zul’s reservations about the bias and reliability of internet polling are valid and justified, particularly the bias of self-selection and non-representativeness of the people polled. It reflects a larger debate world-wide about the relevance of internet polling.
I do not agree however with his summary dismissal of internet polling, even of the type hosted on this blog, provided its bias and limitations are made specific – that it does not claim to reflect the population at large but only the visitors to the blog.
I believe polling on blogs, whether this or others, have their relevance and are not just-for-fun exercises, provided the bias. and limitations are properly discounted.
In this connection, the result of the corruption poll on this blog can be usefully compared to a similar corruption poll on the official Malaysian portal. As at 1.35 pm, the result of the poll on this blog is as follows:
How well is the govt doing in its fight against corruption?
Selection Votes
Very Well 1% 10
Well 0% 0
Good Enough 0% 3
Could be better 5% 53
Pretty Average 2% 24
Borderline Case 4% 45
Could Be Worse 4% 40
Disappointing 20% 208
Very Disappointing 24%
249
What fight? 38% 394
1,026 votes total
Poll results are subject to error. Pollhost.com does not pre-screen the content of polls created by Pollhost customers.
The result of the myGovernment portal on corruption just visited is as follows:
Do you feel that corruption in the public sector has been reduced?
Strong agree 2.95% (15)
Agree 9.82% (50)
Strongly disagree 33.20% (169)
Disagree 51.47% (262)
No comment 2.55% (13)
Total Vote: 509
Start Date: 26/09/2005
End Date: 10/10/2005
There is a remarkable congruence in the two polls – with 82% of 1,026 votes in this blog poll while 84.67 per cent of 507 votes on the myGovernment poll expressing disappointment at the anti-corruption outcomes. I think such congruence in these two online polling, despite their bias and limitations, is most remarkable and deserve attention – even at parliamentary level.
Mack said he could vote more than once, that all that is needed is to disconnect and reconnect Streamyx as to obtain a different IP. I tried it last night and the rejection “We're sorry, you've already voted in this poll!” appeared.
I am sure, however, that just as website can be hacked, internet polls can be compromised.
Finally, as former Inspector-General of Police Hanif Omar had not continued with his column on his 34 SMS corruption polling in the Sunday Star today, he should have more time to digest the comments posted on the thread on this blog arising from his article last Sunday for his next column.
<< Home