Non-sensical defence

A close friend request that I should stop my charade from pretending someone that I am not and should revert back to my original identity in one of the most popular social network site in the cyberspace. However despite the good advise that is much appreciated , I decide to contend what she contend over in the first place which is my alleged disturbed dishonest identity attribute in the most popular social network site in the cyberspace.


I strongly object to her discontent that what I'm actually doing in the social network site is a charade on my part and such conduct of mine are unethical,despicable and ought to be extensively condemned as she thinks this is the right thing to do in order to effectively lead me back to correct path as this is what Jesus wants it to be.(Sheer mocking, don't feel offended yah)

To be proactive, Denise is not a complete identity fraud as contrary to some whom might think it is. In general people are of the view that there's a stark difference between the word Denise and Dennis whereby the former applies to ladies while the latter applies to gentlemen. Yes, I concur with you to 100%. This is supported by the literal interpretation of the Oxford Dictionary. No contend in this matter.

However, in my defence, as far as my anthropolgy experience in our society is concern, the practical exprience, there are people out there who still continue to misunderstood that Denise is male gendered. I did not made this up as I personally experience this before. I seriously can't believe it that people would pronounce and perceive Denise to be the same as Dennis when its completely the opposite in terms of pronunciation and most importantly spelling wise.

Well, it's understandable if these unique group of people are narrowly chinese educated and have low appreciation for the concept of English language ( reminds me of Concept of Law) but having to come across a lawyer who does the same mistake greatly affirm the fact that using Denise to represent Dennis is no wrong.

Even lawyer thinks Denise is Dennis so how wrong can I be? Although I know the fact this is a limited application towards only ah beng lawyer to make such a foolish mistake and a joke out of themself but I remain adamant and obstinate not to tow the non-foolish people's line of argument. I want to join the weird group. Be exotic. Be uniquely different. Be 1Malaysia.


If there's a minority group people who think differently from the majority group, does that makes the minority group thinking wrong?

No. If everyone thinks the same except you alone in the global who thinks differently, then you're wrong. Then your action are justified to be held unethical,despicable and ought to be extensively condemned!

In my defence, there are people out there who still pronounce Denise as Dennis so this would only mean one thing that I'm not deceiving EVERYONE with my alleged inaccurate name in cycberspace because someone is reading my alleged inaccurate name as what it naturally means. If their pronunciation of such word meets the same pronunciation of my real name how can I be wrong?

Well, I can't satisfy everyone's demand right? I need to cater my identity to those pitiful soul who can't differentiate between Denise and Dennis.

So I rest my case. My lunatic case haha....

I-City at Shah Alam

I can't remember when I went to I-City at Shah Alam but since the pictures taken from there was found idle in my hard disk while I was browsing through my personal files I decide to post them up here for my readers to have a savour at how beautiful and fancy the place is when the lights are turned on full force.






I've few words to describe this place though. It's no doubt pretty amazing during night time as variety of colourful lights brightenup the place. It's like an everyday Christmas Day over at I-City but however I personally feel it's an overrated tourist attraction spot. Well, which tourist attraction spot aren't overrrated you tell me. Haha...Anyway, if you have not been there before I suggest you should atleast place your foot there once to experience the inexplicable feel when you're surrounded by beautiful lights. It's give you the instant Christmas feeling.

Morality falling upside down

I write in reference to the absurd news article that recently became the netizen criticism for the wrong reason.

I'm livid and upset upon reading this that someone has to see red over inaction of an innocent petrol kiosk attendance who fail to give him the fire extinguisher so he could save a (accident victim)girl's life. The petrol kiosk attendance omission has been interpreted to be the MAJOR cause of the girls death. For me, this conclusion is simply irreconcilable and absurd.

How can you blame entirely on a third party to an accident whose not at fault in whatsoever towards the construction of the accident to be the MAJOR cause of the girl's death? It is just unfair. I'm suspecting his motive for doing so. (I have added my suggestion who this guy might be in my conclusion)

Before you continue reading, I want to declare that I do sympathise the girl's death but the way the first witness to the accident depict the situation in my view are deplorable.

Just because he didn't lend you his fire extinguisher that doesn't make him standing at the wrong end. Please be neutral when you attack the issue. Please consider both side argument before you conclude that he has failed to carry out his duty.

First and foremost, the petrol kiosk attendant is no where near the vicinity of the accident hence it's reasonably understandable if he's not slightly convinced of your story since the accident was 500 metre away which is like half a kilometre away. You try to walk 500 metre you will see how freaking FAR is that.

No sound minded person would ever believe your story ,well as far as it applys to me, that an accident had took place unless it happened before my eyes and then cause myself voluntarily release or relinquish my property to you. Would you? I wouldn't. So are many annoying bystander who repeatedly slow down to view road accident as if they really care.

Visual evident is the best proof to substantiate and influence decision making. Merely listen to story-telling can easily put this within the ambit of hearsay rule. Besides that, what you said is up to my discretion to believe it. And in this case, the petrol attendance doesn't buy your poor story telling so don't blame him.

On the other hand, the fire extinguisher isn't the attendance property in the first place. How can he give you something that's not his? It was his boss' fire extinguisher. So it would amount to stealing with intent to deprieve property belong to others and by him handing it over to you means he maybe aiding and betting a theft, in the strictest legal sense.

Just to safeguard for any legal argument that may arise in regards to this matter I want to stress this point. Yes, it'd accord to legal principle if you showed him your IC and even give him your contact number as a security in exchange of the fire extinguisher to proof benevolent intention BUT what makes you think the petrol kiosk attendance is legally knowledgable on this matter?

What further grinds my gears is that people are accusing the petrol station to have breach their corporate social responsibility by placing fire extinguisher at place out of public reach. The defender of humanity are arguing that fire extinguisher should always placed outdoor where it is reachable. That's is absolutely correct. Correct to a certain limit. Correct if its during day time but as night falls especially during the wee hours of the night where crime is rampant, it's always safe to keep in the store where the property can be secured from theft.

If you find that petrol station doesn't live up to their corporate social responsibility promise, then why don't you ALL THE GOOD SAMARITAN OUT THERE WHO LOVES TO HELP PEOPLE SO MUCH starts carrying a fire extinguisher in your car from today onwards so next time if similar accident happens, you have a fire extinguisher ready in your possession and is ready to help out those poor poor accident victim without the need to beg third party who doesnt have big heart as you.

Speaking of which, I'm not sure any of you may notice this but did you notice that fire department's respond level was not highlighted in the newspaper? If a witness to an accident had called the emergency line, how fast would the fire department reaches the accident scene? Not highlighted there. Instead we are lead to focus on some biased emotional first person view.

All this story spinning thanks and no thanks to the so called good samaritan who tried to help but reaches futility CAUSED the media to depict an entire wrong picture of rational and sense surrounding the accident. You don't have to sensationalise the issue you bullock!

To be honest, I seriously doubt he's our ordinary bystander who happen to be at the accident scene to lend a helping hand to an accident victim because a bystander would have never attached so much of emotion, not this much till the extend of sensationalise this issue in the media, in a normal car accident unless he's a close party to the accident victim.

Lesson of the day. If you are driving night, you've put yourself at risk and we assumed you have accepted this risk. So whatever happens at night, you asked for it!