Ever since I started working, I am feeling a steep decline in the standard of my English.

In order to salvage whatever that’s left, I’m going to start blogging again, though I have to admit it’s a sad sad valiant attempt.

I shall still try nonetheless.

I know not many read this lonely blog but WATCH OUT FOR THIS SPACE.

i am now officially freed, but unemployed.

——————–

It usually begins like this.
You send me a heart. I returned you one.
This might go on for a few nights.
Then someone breaks the chain – an email.
A few lines of customary introduction. It might spark something.
More mails, they get longer. Then we jumped onto MSN.
Chats late into the night. Then we moved to the phone.
I like your voice. You like mine too. The first electric tinge.
We talked more, later into the night. Topics range from plain banality and silliness to heavy existentialist stuff (if we ever permit) Pancakes and Eskimos to Tsai Ming Liang. We might talk about sex and the proverbial ‘position’ we categorized ourselves.
Late into the night. I got you hard. You make me hard. We arranged to meet, finally.

Dinner, movies and coffee – what else is there to do here?
Otherwise, straight to the bed. Diving for your cock.
And no, we weren’t even drunk.

Let us rewind. First encounter. Our eyes met. Fumbling of phones to confirm identity. Awkward but usually friendly (sometimes over-friendly) hellos.
You are in 3-dimensional for the first time!
So this is how you dress/walk/move/talk/smell/behave (or I imagine how you would kiss/suck/fuck)

You become layers of thick fog in winter, Disappearing and appearing in front of me, Fading in and out of frame – All your little gestures and characteristics.
Certain things of you eluded me. Certain things pull me further in, deeper down.

Fast forward. Post – dinner
1. If lethargy sets in, this is good-bye.
“So, how are you going back?” ( it’s only 9pm)
“ok, I will ‘see’ you online. Take care” (cyberspace has become our best refuge and most elegant escape route)
We parted, usually walking in different directions to different modes of transport,
With a slight tinge of vacuous indifference in my heart.

2. If mutuality sets in, more talk.
We wandered around this soulless city, Searching for topics of interest, sparks of the occasional fireworks.
“Christmas trees that dance are scary.”
“yeah. heh.”
Beneath the lighted trees, Our own trepidation dances with them. We finally settle ourselves down, and over coffee and cigarettes, We open up more of our identities, selves and souls. I want to see more of you. I want to know you better. You want to see more of me.

3. If sexuality sets in, we become jittery, Eyes shifting, smiles awkward. Signals can get confusingly obscure and mixed-up. Are you horny or just flustered? Why are you wearing that tight tee shirt? Why do you keep touching yourself in a strange way? (hindsight : its probably a come on) We both seek the devilish glint in our shy brown eyes. I cruised your body down to your cock. I want to make it throb. You placed your warm hands on the back of my neck. Electric shocks. Followed by a hard-on. We wandered around this soulless city, Scouring for a place to make out.

Fast forward. 2. Post – meaningful coffee talk / 3. Post – Copulation -Lying on the bed, our limbs locking, / Our feet nearly touching under the table,
-I discovered that YOU might be my ex’s present lover’s Tuesday’s fuck buddy!

CUE. “what a wonderful world” EXT. NIGHT.
Fake snow pouring down along Orchard road, Kids shouting at swaying Christmas trees.

I provide two cases where the failure of questioning of assumptions led to two business failures. We first examine the failure of the introduction of the new Coke in 1985. The new Coke was introduced to replace the original formula of its flagship product, Coca-Cola. However, the product met with a consumer backlash because the original Coke flavor had been too ingrained consumers’ hearts and taste buds and had a solid and vocal fan base. As a result, the original formula was reintroduced three months later.

The question in this case is: why change? It is evident that the argument for continuing with the original formula was more compelling. The management had failed to realize the deep emotional attachment Coke represented to many of its consumers. By changing the taste of this product, it will only serve to alienate its consumers who had seen Coke as part of their identity, especially South Americans who regard Coke as part of their regional identity. Sometimes, you not only have to question the old assumptions, but the new information brought in to challenge the old assumptions.

The other times, it is necessary to change old assumptions. Bethelehem Steel Corporation was the unwitting victim of being enslaved by old assumptions. It was the second largest steel producer in the United States and one of the largest shipbuilding companies in the world. Despite so, they filed for bankruptcy in 2001. This was because they could not adjust to the structural changes in the industry when America shifted away from becoming industrial manufacturing to becoming a service-based economy as well as cheap foreign labor.

Bethelehem Steel failed to question their current modus operandi quick enough with respect to the competitive environment. They had failed to realize how their mode of operations had failed to accord with the changing tides of the economy. Questioning, in this case, would have alerted them of the disjunct between their company’s and the economy’s direction. This could have averted the entire disaster.

Hence, as can be seen, questioning is an important skill. Only by questioning the deeply held assumptions can good assumptions be retained and improved on (as in the case of the new Coke) and poor assumptions be discarded (as in the case of Bethelehem Steel Corporation). With this, Accenture can unshackle herself from the limits purveyed by current assumptions to move towards in being a high performance and successful company. And of course, prevent business failures like the above mentioned from happening.

and maybe i think its time for me to blog regularly.

there are many issues that are worth thinking about.

and i want to pen them down and keep it somewhere.

One guy asked whether a hot bod is a necessity in the gay scene. The following reply was posted by a very astute forumer. Enjoy.

———–

These are my answers to you, concluded from the years of sharp observation in the gay scene. You may agree or disagree.Or extract what you can understand to fit to your current self and the current situation you are in.

Yes and along the way, No.

When you are young, fresh ,a eager beaver, fascinated by the colours of the gay world, yes, everything is about having a hot body. If you have a face to fit that bod, bingo, you are a star in the gay world.

To have a hot bod, you will train very hard in the gym for it. You will participate in whatever sports that would enhance your physique. If you are ever honest to ask yourself why are you doing all this.

Simple. Its the herd instinct syndrome. You want to be accepted. You want to be in the limelight, the fantasy of all men, you want to be the envy of all eyes. You just want to be loved (subtly) and conforming to the pretty cruel gay culture, where having a hot physique is the supreme prime prerequisite.

But you are not your body. The real you is the collection of your thoughts, beliefs and attitudes.
If you can’t have that humble attitude to carry out what you have built for yourself, physically, sooner or later, people can see through you. They merely treat you the most, a sex object, and nothing more to that. That will be your greatest disappointment.

Monica Bellucci’s famous “5mins ” quote is what I call wisdom cleverly worded ” Just because you have a face and a body, you are given 5mins. Only 5 minutes. After 5mins you can’t carry what you are, you are just very ordinary, if not boring “

But mind you. Beautiful people in whatever culture have their own frustrations. Here I will only refer to the gay culture.

When you have the hot physical attributes that fits the fantasy and the appetite of the masses, you may be in for some trouble.

You will never be lacking of suitors and sex buddies, that will envy many. But in times of trouble or the need for help, none of them will stand by you. You will realized its only sex they want from you. Other then that, they don’t want anything from you. Or can’t give you anything else than sex.

You will never be lacking of suitors. But you will always be in doubt, whether the person likes you because of your looks, or your personality? Or will he dump and abandon you should one day, someone younger fresher and have a hotter bod than yours comes along?

You will never be lacking of friends. People tend to hang around the good looking ones, thats because it makes them feel good. You are just a trophy they can show off to the rest. It enhances their status and probably, facebook profile.

But can they be there for you in times of trouble? That you must ask yourself.

You will also notice goodlooking ones like to hang around with each other, especially in clubs parties and social gatherings.

Do you not observed sometimes they like to judge and mock at those people , whom they perceived to be lesser than themselves? The truth is, there are no real ugly people in this world, only ugly personalities.

Goodlooking ones stick together, because it gives them a sort of command or power. But sadly these are their illusions. Real power comes from your will power, your preseverance, your sharp discretion between whats right and wrong, your wisdom your compassion , not how you look like physically.

You will also noticed between and behind each other, there are malicious bitching and betrayals going on between the goodlookings What seems to bond them together, is nothing more than their shells.

Goodlooking ones tends to think the entire world owns them a living. They think they can get anything with their looks.

You must admit this, its usually the beautiful and goodlooking ones who gets away with murder. If you are perceived as ordinary or below standards…very very hard for people to believe what you saying even you are speaking the truth. Sadly this is how our human ways seems to function.

But inspite of all these, I am not saying that all hot bods or goodlooking ones are shallow and horrible.

There are really nice ones around. You must see through them not just look at them. There are a handful i have come across who are polite, humble and even gracious.

I really respect them for how they are able to strike a balance, between how they look outwardly on the exterior and what they are in the interior.

I have come to one conclusion – the most beautiful people are those, who knows they are physically attractive, yet they don’t judge others, and they accept how others look like. In short, they are not only in harmony with themselves, they are harmonious with people and their environment.

It is perfectly alright to train to get a body, but you must be aware of your thoughts your deeds and you intentions.
I have even heard people telling me they go to the gym to build a body, so they can be lucky in saunas and in clubs.
I won’t judge their intentions. Because thats their life and choices they have made.

If you ever wish to build a hot physique, do it for yourself, do it your confidence, your self esteem, most important, your health, and not to fulfill the fantasy of some quacks out there, who doesn’t give a shit what you are inside.
Unless your occuption requires looks, example, a model or a social escort, then fine, by all means.

You can still enjoy the finer things in life while having a nice physique.

Blessed are those, who have found true friends and lovers , who can love and appreciate what they are inside, and yet still be there for them in times of need, but not because how they look like.

Because life is such that in time to come, looks and physique will vanish one day. What will remain, are your own inner peace your wisdom and good people, who will still be there for you.

Hope my posting can be some help to your enquiry.

———–

Pardon the bad English and you will find that the post is very enlightening.

Let me sum up some of their arguments :

1. Why should polytechnic students be denied admissions to a local university just because they are from polytechnic ?

Technically, varsities are not denying anyone their chances of admission. If you are saying that chances are reduced for polytechnic students, then maybe. Then if so, why are varsities not giving equal chances to polytechnic students as compared to A’level students ? I think the answer has been beaten to death, which I shall rehash here again. An A’level education is mounted as the pre-University education to prepare the students for the university while a polytechnic or diploma education is geared for the workforce. Naturally, universities give a higher priority to A’level students because that is the supposed end-point of their education. Of course, it may not necessarily be so, but in Singapore, this is a widely recognized fact.

2. Increasing the intake of polytechnic students is not going to help because the current 10% limits allows only the brightest, who can cope with the University curriculum to enter university.

If one increases the intake of polytechnic students, then inversely, those A’level students who have been denied admissions are going to complain. I don’t really buy the 10%-can-cope-anything-lesser-cannot argument. If you put in enough effort, you definitely would be able to cope.

3. Singapore should offer better options to recognize and retain its bright minds.

I agree with this, there are other contingent factors to consider like what kind of graduates the industry wants and the kind of institutes that people want to enroll in. I would think, that the economy is not interested with liberal art colleges and people do not want to enter liberal art colleges. If so, then the few avenues left would be to replicate NUS,SMU and NTU. And when that happens, it is just going to drive the entire degree chase and everyone is going to end up on equal grounds. Funny how everyone tries to excel but end up equal.

4. We should modify the University Admissions Score systems so we can compare A’level students and Polytechnic students on equal grounds.

Don’t think that is theoretically possible considering the divergent aims of an A’level education and polytechnic education. We’re comparing apples and oranges here.

I started watching you when I entered varsity life, just like you entered Mode. And the day you left Mode was the last day of my varsity life. I don’t know whether its coincidental or what.

But like you, I will now take the risk to step into the supposed reality that awaits me. thank you for your company throughout the 4 years.

bye bye braces, poncho betty, bye bye my student life.

You don’t aim at happiness. Ben Swetland once said that “Happiness is a journey, not a destination”, and this was already established by many philosophers way before him. When we set out to do something, we don’t do it because we want to be happy. It is a state. Per example, I am drinking now to quench my thirst. It doesn’t afford me “happiness” per se, but maybe it affords me a certain sense of pleasure that my parched throat is now quenched by Starbuck’s Matcha Latte. Pleasure is fleeting and momentary. Happiness, on the other hand, is more abstract and long-term. If so, then it isn’t possible to aim at doing things for happiness per se. I don’t see how drinking my Matcha Latte now makes me “happy”, but again, I emphasize, it pleasures me.

Back to the blog. Everyone wants to be happy, a trivial fact. And no doubt, person A wants to be happy too. However, things start to get tricky. Person A starts to do things, in fact, a lot of things and his life becomes a busy blur . Then there are two issues and questions here that I am posing to Person A  : are you happy doing what you are doing now and is it necessary to do what you are doing now to be happy ? If these things make Person A truly happy, then there is no problem here.

The problem only starts coming when this whole striving towards happiness doesn’t work. Being busy does not afford happiness as Person A presumed. I’m afraid its not solving the problem that Peson A wants to be solved in the first place. What I want to highlight is this :  there are people who are less busy, but more happy and there are people who are more busy, but yet equally happy. You can fill every moment of your life with things to do and yet be as empty as can be but yet you can be immensely happy even though your life is as empty as can be.

You draw your own conclusions. Illustrated here are ideas that are not written in coherence and direction. I am leaving this conclusion to be drawn be readers because I want to avoid being called judgmental and being a bad friend, whatever that means.

In Tatzel’s conceptual analysis, he did not differentiate between “instrumental materialism” and “terminal materialism”.  “Instrumental materialism” is a mantra that regards things as “essential for discovering and furthering personal values and goals of life”.[1] On the other hand, “terminal materialism” happens when “consumption furthers no goal beyond possession itself”.[2] If consumers engage in instrumental materialism, it is possible to argue that it actually improves consumers’ well being instead.

However, there are problems with this distinction. It has been argued that “terminal materialism” is impossible[3]. This is because purchasing behavior is “a means of satisfying needs such as desires for prestige, self- assertiveness, pre-eminence, and dominion”.[4]

We disagree with this assessment. It is possible for consumers to view the possession of worldly goods as an end itself. For example, compulsive shoppers derive happiness from the act of buying, not from what the items do for them. In fact, most of the time the items are bought in excess and are not used in any respect. Thus, at most, critics can only charge that this concept might be a practical rarity, but not impossibility.

Also, when critics prosecute materialism, critics need to appeal to a higher reason to explain why materialism is wrong. Their most common argument is that materialism leads to “spiritual emptiness” and “detrimental of well-being”. In arguing so, they are appealing to certain values that they are personally subscribing to and projecting their values on the assessment of materialism. In fact, in the Tatzel paper, the state of well-being has been coined “subjective well-being”. This hints at the idea that there may well be no one state of mind that everyone can subscribe to in their quest for happiness. Individuals possess their own definitions of well-being. Consequently, critics cannot argue that materialism is wrong, for they are merely projecting their own moral values on the issue.

However, one can argue that the “wrongness” of materialism as been demonstrated by empirical evidence, that “ being overly concerned with money and putting material goals at the center of one’s life are detrimental to well-being”. This may well be true, but even so they would need to show that there is only one state of well-being. Only if there is only one state of well-being and materialism is opposed to this particular state can we accept that materialism is “detrimental”.

Lastly, when Tatzel projects their own values into the issue, we argue that they will meet with another problem. This is succinctly captured by Hume’s Is-Ought Fallacy.[5] Hume argues that “no ought-judgment may be correctly inferred from a set of premises expressed only in terms of ‘is’ ”.[6] Viewed objectively, without importing any moral values, materialism is simply “the importance people attach to worldly possessions.”[7] By assuming that materialism is wrong, Tatzel has moved from an observation to a moral judgment. As a result, there is a logical leap in the reasoning.

At the end of the day, what Tatzel may just be trying to tell us is that: Materialism, carried to the extreme may be bad, but can be beneficial if performed in moderation. This is the age old adage by Aristotle, that moderation is the way of to a good life[8]. Materialism may be good or bad, but it must be consumed in moderation.