Blogger vs Pro

Call it a mini spat. But I couldn't hold it in anymore.

Did anybody read this article from TODAY newspaper, by its oh-so-high-ranking deputy Plus editor? http://www.todayonline.com/articles/79024.asp

Well, it peeved me so much that I shot an instant retort back. No one has the right to say Singaporean movie goers are illogical. Heck, we pay for what we want to watch!


This is what I said:
I'LL STOP WATCHING CRAP IF YOU STOP WRITING CRAP. DEAL?

The proverbial final straw has emerged.

"A sad week for movies" really represents an entire
era of bad writing! I sincerely think your writer has
run out of quality topics to write since long ago.

On and off, I have read this writer's weekly articles.
To dedicate 1 whole page of free-writing to the writer
is simply unfathomable. Save for that 1 touching
article about the tsunami aftermath in Aceh, most of
the articles make no sense at all. They are not even
funny, if that is what he hopes to achieve. It is
simply beyond my understanding why such aimless
articles that are constantly churned out go under the
Editor's radar.

The fact that Deuce Bigalow is the No 1 movie in
Singapore means movie goers are illogical? An article
like this with no substance has no right to put down
an entire population of local movie goers! Who is to
say movies must be watched based on their
"arty-farty-ness"? Who is to decide on which movie the
audience should spend their money on?

Take note. The Box Office Top Ten list does not tell
the reader which movie has the most substance. It
simply tells you which one is the most popular,
currently. Your writer must be writing for the wrong
publication, for such wilful judgment on movie goers
is really unacceptable. Since when has the Top Ten
list been renamed "Arthouse Box Office Top Ten"?

Now, most people watch comedies for its entertainment
value - the ability to make one laugh, to forget just
for that 1.5 hours. It certainly does not mean the
audience has no taste!

When a writer wields his ink-soaked sword, he must be
responsible. If not, it would be "A Sad Era For
Journalism".

redcocoon


Well, he wrote back the next day, in subdued anger:
> Hello there
>
> Thanks for the entertaining, Singlish humour column.
>
> If you identified yourself, we could have sent your
> piece to HR.
>
> Because we certainly found it funny in the office.
>
> All the best
>
> Neil Humphreys (my real name)


I was surprised. A professional writer was actually offended by my honest thoughts and being a writer, couldn't hide it well in his words. He even challenged me to reveal my name, which I wasn't even trying to hide. So challenge and offer issued, I responded:
No problem dude. I'm just too used to my pseudonym.
The name's Mr Foo. So, save the subtle challenge.
If you guys need a writer with localized, cynical
humour, name your terms. Haha!

Looking back at what I wrote, I may have appeared too
rude. I apologise for that, Neil. It's just that I
have come across too many articles by journalists,
from different publications, who appear to have put
themselves up on their own imaginary pedestal for
self-worship, just cos they have the power of print.
It's frustrating, you know? So, it was an outburst on
my part.

Have a good night!

Yours
Mr Foo (my real name too)


I never heard from him after that. No job offers, no nothing... He must have sat back and thought it wasn't worth it. Redcocoon might just be a "ricebowl breaker".


redcocoon