THE INTELLIGENT SINGAPOREAN

Powered by the Plogosphere

Great Hall Debate 2

Posted by intellisg on May 6, 2007

chernobly.jpgThe Great Hall Debate in Chernobyl.

Sunday May 06, 2007, 2000 Hrs.

“What is 2 X 2? Or, how should do we maximize our resources to carve out a competitive advantage in today’s world?”

Dr Chandra and his team vs. Darkness and his team

Advertisements

62 Responses to “Great Hall Debate 2”

  1. Nacramanga said

    Urbana “go”003

    Welcome on again,

    Fellow Netizens to Chernobyl. Please keep your hands in your pocket and do not lick anything. This whole cruddy place is mildly radioactive, but our engineers have done a preliminary sweep and I am happy to declare it’s safe.

    I shall dive in as we don’t have much time.

    The red team will be represented by Dr Chandra and his assistants Dr Doom and Mandrake. As you all know Dr Chandra is a leading AI researcher and game developer of international standing. Dr Doom is an economist and Mandrake is mathematician and a leading common sense exponent, whatever that means.

    The blue team will be represented by Darkness our resident foul mouth troublemaker who has given us all an iron clad undertaking this evening, there will be no more verbal tirades. Both Harphoon and Scholarboy will be serving as his research assistants.

    This debate will be brought to you “LIVE,” currently not technology exist to bring in using streaming audio / video format. We hope you will bear with the typeset and bad spelling.

    We have plans to improve the delivery of the great debate in future not too long from now it will be held in our “Great Hall,” in our brotherhood HQ in Primus Aldentes Prime in the virtual. Our technicians, KOHO and his team will be working hard to bring this all to you dear readers.

    This debate will be conducted in the Socratic style. Do not expect any resolutions or endings, it will just run along very much in a conversational style. Many of our first time readers may not be familiar with the terms or conventions used during the debate but please bear with us and we are very confident you will pick it up as we go along. dispensed with.

    The topic for the debate this evening will be:

    “How do we create competitive advantage in our age against the definitional background of 2X2.”

    Please note although a topic has been set, the modus of debating allows a wide breadth for both parties to depart it, but having said that they must keep to the thematic spirit.

  2. Nacramanga said

    Red team you may begin, I declare the great debate in session.

  3. Dr Chandra said

    Go MIT 3993

    Thank you Mr Chairman. Glad to be back!

    “How do we create competitive advantage in our age?”

    Well let’s look at the synopsis that was used to advertise this great debate. According to darkness, it has a lot to do with what is 2 multiplied by 2.

    I understand where he is coming from and there are indeed valid points that he has raised concerning the need to craft a multi-perspective approach to resolve problems.

    But I want to begin this debate by asking what is 2 multiplied 2 – thats to say I want to determine its precise definitional premise, because if we cannot reach consensus on what this actually means, then it is very difficult to make progress.

    Let us first try to get an axiomatic reference point of 2 multiplied 2.

    Do you agree darkness?

  4. darkness said

    Go aurora 939

    (Darkness gives to Harphoon) – an axiomatic reference point? Please define what you mean Dr Chandra.

  5. Dr Chandra said

    Karl Popper’s view of knowledge, I want to keep it deliberately wide to cover subjects outside the scope of the sciences.

    So I have tweaked his definition slightly for this debate.

    That is to say what we should consider a reference point is a process of securing a foundation of knowledge that is beyond reasonable doubt – do you agree Harpoon? And very nice to see you again.

  6. Harphoon said

    (Harphoon) Agreed. The floor is yours Chandra, we waive the right to respond and nice to see you too.

  7. Dr Chandra said

    Good. Let me explain why it is so important to have one common terms of reference contrary to what darkness believes that we should have as many as possible.

    Have you heard the theory that too many cooks spoilt the dish? Based on my experience with AI.

    I have derived this theory that it’s got nothing to do with the number of cooks but rather their inability to harmonize terms or even speak a coherent language that usually gets them into trouble.

    When I consider that 4 large sized American astronauts can fit into a capsule roughly the size of mini car and work efficiently and respond even effectively in an emergency – its because they have all mastered one common method to make sense of events and more importantly derive at a conclusion using common logic pathways or problem solving skills.

    The key word here is commonality and not diversity as what darkness would like to insist upon.

    Singular pathways and not multiple – that again allows all this to happen and not the as darkness says as many as possible.

    I am going to share with you all the “thesis of multitude disasters” that I Dr Chandra single handedly discovered quite by accident during one of my AI forays while working on chess playing programs. I just want to tell the audience, I am one of the few who has discovered this anomaly and it is credited very much to me and my research fellows.

    In this thesis I realize researchers particularly are always arguing i.e should we be using a relational database? Or would neural nets work better? Perhaps fuzzy logic set will do a better job? What about representing it as a bunch of axioms in mathematical logic? That kind of stuff, darkness will understand, but it pays for the rest of you to get a brief foundational outline.
    Well the answer to all of these depends largely on how you are trained to manage and manipulate data. Now if you think this is ikan bilis stuff don’t! Because ESA (European Space Agency) blew up a $50 million rocket, because scientist were confused with calibration metrics!

    So this may appear to be small stuff but getting it wrong and you get a giant mushroom cloud or worse still a ghost city like where we are now, Chernobyl. To be honest with you can use whatever you want to resolve an equation or problem but its very important to have a common reference point so that everyone knows what you are talking about.

    Otherwise you might as well throw away your data table and everything is just might’s, ands and ors and so on. So I disagree very strongly with darkness when he advocates the usage of a multi-perspective approach, it may sound good conceptually, but from an operational standpoint, I know from experience it just doesn’t work.

  8. Darkness said

    Let me make an important distinction here. When Chandra uses the word commonality and singular pathways of creating competitive advantage, he is referring to linear decision making i.e ABCD etc. It runs in straight lines, every now and then it hits a decision diamond and it splits into two etc. I just want you all to remember this

    Hey, I don’t disagree, standard references are important things, otherwise trains will derails and planes will fall off from skies. Worst still we will all still be stuck in a cave studying shadows. I don’t dispute this for one second.

    [KOHO you have 2 min darkness to reply or penalty on time]

    However, the linchpin or beach head that Chandra is trying to make here is that his singular or commonality approach should be extended to encompass the wider paradigm of what we typically consider to be the art or science of how to make vacuum cleaners, cars or even how to cook a hard boiled egg i.e as a means to create competitive advantage.

    Let’s ask ourselves a simple question, how are lousy decisions typically made first of all? A lot of research has been done in this area especially in the aerospace industry and let me just share with you the gist of it. Usually it begins when people doesn’t matter whether it is pilots or engineers make the false assumption that there’s an “it” there rather than a collection of stuff running around like rabbits, or a network of interrelated processes at work that keeps the plane flying or taking off, that sort of thing.

    It’s hard to put those kind of stuff into tight pigeon hole definitions that’s why planes continually crash and 90% of the time the main reason is human error, even the ones that usually follow Chandra singular or commonality route – they are usually the worst. Keep this in mind.

    So coming back to what is 2 X 2 and how it applies here to create competitive advantage – it simply means leveraging on as many means and pathways as possible to derive at solution i.e it is the direct opposite of what Chandra is advocating.

    That’s the reason why although computers these days can fly a plane humans still need to be there, they are the most flexible chain in the whole decision making process. And its because they don’t think using any form of machine or logic based commonality as Chandra has suggested. In fact during an emergency, there is nothing logical about a plane, if you don’t believe me just look at how people react when the engine is fire.

    Question here, why is there usually more than one pathway to one solution? Aristotle’s thesis on Metaphysics goes a long way to shed some light into the process. Now there he said, something to the effect the definition of a house is assigned to such terms as a shelter against wind, rain and heat. But a physicist or architect according to Aristotle would describe the relationship between physical elements and the whole idea of a house as stones, bricks and timbers. You see the difference in the first is a functional definition – the house is to keep the elements away. The second one is a structural engineering description – load, fulcrums that sort of stuff, the nuts and bolts. But the magic in Aristotle’s supposition is that he goes on to says, there’s a third possible definition of a house which would be found by combining this two references as a house supported by elements to provide shelter.

    This naturally poses a philosophical question: which then, is entitled to be regarded as the genuine terms of reference, is it the first, second or the hybrid? Is it the one who confines himself to the material or the one who restricts himself to the formulaic approach? I guess it has to be the hybrid that best makes sense of the case.

    So here’s a good example of multiple representation and why its so important to have as many different ways to discover solutions,you might also transpose this approach to make sense of the very simple to complex.

    But in each case the theory is pretty robust you could want a 4 but there is more to than 2X2 that takes you there 3+1 may do just as well as 3/12.

  9. Dr Chandra said

    OK why am I not surprise again to hear all this again.

    What you are saying darkness is that nothing can be predicted with any level of certainty because there are infinite pathways to solutions.

    Ok enough of this Chairman, I propose we move the debate to the political sphere as I understand from the feedback of the last debate many of the audience were thoroughly confused by the scientific terminologies used in my AI analogy. I really don’t want that to happen again. Does darkness agree? I request for a 5 minute strategy session with my assistants. Pls also note the post here is slow for some reason can KOHO fix this or is this another ploy so that I do not have enough time to respond adequately?

  10. Darkness said

    Hey its up to you man, I am cool. You can go any where you want Chandra. We’ve all still have to come back here to catch the train back though.

    [KOHO darkness / chandra has request a 5 min and your line, his line is slow, very slow.]

    Take la

  11. Nacrmanga said

    gentlemen 2 more minutes – both parties have agreed to shift to the political.

    KOHO prep the line pls my signal is weak as well.

  12. Dr Chandra said

    Thanks for the break chairman, I will take the floor, if I may.

    Allow me to just highlight one particular article that darkness wrote recently entitled, “It is time to stop feeding the monkeys” ( EP000001/ 0001/ 2007 / The Brotherhood Press 2007). This was posted in the IS.

    The reason why I have mentioned this article is because no where else do get into an insight into how absurd his theory of multitude pathways of decision making actually is only this time it is paraphrased in a political cum pseudo -science i.e we need to many ways to solve problems or to create competitive advantage.
    Let me just highlight a few glaring Byzantium size errors in his article where he writes:

    “Darwinian theory is NOT a rational theory to flesh out historical, cultural and political development..
    This is where Darwinian theory falls flat on its face, it wasn’t designed to address the complexities of modern society where free markets feature along side abstractions such as globalization or even the concept of a 9 to 5 job. Neolithic man was a hunter gatherer who foraged the lands without regard to all these modern attributions and to ascribe currency to the Darwinian theory as a means of making sense of the problems of our age is seriously misplaced logic. It cannot even take into account the realities or complexities which modern life generates – problems such as people living longer than they are supposed too, or a frenetic pace of city living which is not so different from the “Red Queen,” syndrome, named after the character in “Through the Looking Glass” who found it necessary to run constantly just to keep up with a world that was constantly moving beneath her feet. Unfortunately, it’s a war of attrition, one where our sinews will eventually give way and we will inevitably tire and stumble only to fall by the way side. Against this pantheon of realities, one really sees how inadequate it is when apparently learned men still cling to the pre Edenic tools of using Darwin’s theory to justify their line of reasoning.

    Perhaps the most corrosive effects of allowing Darwinian theory to seep into our consciousness, be it managing human resources, profiling policies or simply to make sense of the world, lies in the widespread misconception that it’s a robust model that doesn’t suffer from any systematic flaws. If we are to believe Darwinian theory holds the key to our continued survival by nurturing competitive means to stave off the effects of extinction, this naturally requires us to question whether the theory implies progress or a step up from the status quo. But as modern science has shown, even this notion is at best fragile and at worst downright dubious. Part of the weakness of Darwinian theory lies in, it isn’t so much based on progress as it is on controlled regression, and the reasons are simple: man isn’t supposed to live forever. In fact, no species is. We are all supposed to eventually perish and natural selection isn’t so much a way to move forward or improve as it is a means to engineer a soft landing for our inexorable demise.”

    End of quote from darkness article.

    Now there are two issues here:

    Firstly, darkness doesn’t subscribe to the notion that evolutionary theory has any bearing on discussions of political, economic, social and technological change. To him it is just one gigantic blob. Despite the fact, overwhelming empirical science of evolutionary biology and the mathematical apparatus that has been developed to make a coherent account of changes that result from the underlying biological processes of inheritence and natural selection have for the last 100 years consistently demonstrated there is a robust link between natural selection and what we may call progress today.

    Now you don’t have to be a scientist like me to appreciate the value of evolutionary biology to explain much of the progress of the human race. You could just as well, look at how cars and aeroplanes have developed in the last 100 years just to see how they have essentially evolved. In every case the mathematical formulation is pretty robust i.e each successive generation is an incremental improvement over the last.

    The same can be said of politics and most recently the field of econometrics, where globalization is the direct result of trade liberalization which in effect is predicated on the whole idea of the free market economy. Which if you examine thematically is essentially nothing other that Darwinian theory i.e survival of the fittest

    I really wonder how would darkness go on to explain this without the implicitly having to recognize the value of evolutionary theory in these developments?

    Am I to believe these events or developments go some way to support my theory that things develop incrementally and in small steps and if they do so doesn’t this suggest that there is a linearity to how we typically learn and develop solutions – a process I simply progress. How may I ask does he account for all these developments in the absence of a governing logic?

  13. darkness said

    Oh how will I answer this?

    Chandra, have you ever considered. What if better cars, aeroplanes or globalization was due to someone studying the comparative history of urination techniques and extrapolating theorems from there to make better axles, wings or axioms? In my opinion (cut off by red team, invoked)

  14. darkness said

    I was merely trying to say that one cannot just edit the inconvenient facts out of any kind of development.

    The fact is this, Darwinian theory is not a universal theory that is applicable to a wide range of disciplines beyond biology. Even them it is screwy there, go ask anyone who makes a living out of studying spit in a petri dish and they will tell you that evolutionary biology doesn’t make the slightest sense. Despite this what surprises me is how subject matter experts like Chandra continually leverage on Darwinian theory as a means of shoring up his rational theory. Now I can launch another tirade on his robotics AI research, but since he has cleverly limited the discussion to the political and economic sphere. So according to the rules I cannot do this, but let me just reiterate what I wrote in my article, it is time to stop feeding the monkeys. Where I specifically mentioned why it doesn’t make the slightest sense to use evolutionary or for that matter even biological theory to flesh out historical, cultural and political development. That sort of knowledge may provide an account of why the dodo bird died out or why dinosaurs no longer rule the earth or why we have 5 fingers instead of 6. But to say to use the same theory to make sense of lets say something like social or historical development like why there are five million Jews in the state of Israel surrounded by 200 million over Arabs. What Chandra simply needs to appreciate is the limits of Darwinian theory become all too often it elides the role of power and politics as intervening factors. Let me give you a simple illustration, you can say that Serangoon road developed the way it did because there was X number of temples divided by Y square miles, inversed by Z number of people. And bingo you have little India, but I say you could just as well have derived the same sociological pedigree by perusing the urban planning development by the URA for the last 30 or 40 years and attribute it all to a series of laws, regulations, by –laws, all designed to create a social micro climate.
    My point is this, there is no linearity and even less of what Chandra refers too as incremental and evolutionary anything, other than to explain why I stir my coffee anti clockwise instead of the other way.
    I would not go as far as to say this is my top hat theory, because I certainly do recognize exceptionalities here. But when Chandra says that free trade = survival of the fittest = Darwinian theory = globalization.
    Then I say Chandra you are assuming a priori fact that doesn’t take stock of reality, not accurately at least. For one globalization as a concept existed even before the advent of the IMF or World Bank. For some strange reason even modern day economist all seem to suffering from mass hypnosis when they continually insist quite wrongly globalization is quite a recent phenomenon.

  15. Dr Chandra said

    globalization is a recent phenomenon darkness.

    Are you saying that all the leading economist in this world are wrong?

    It is generally accepted to be the result of policies of deregulation. How else can you then explain the systematic connection between globalization and the free market?

  16. darkness said

    leading economist? I beg your pardon name me one that subscribes to that old hat theory. Let me set the record here straight, but before I do so. Allow me link the whole debate of evolutionary theory with what I have to say, otherwise the audience wouldn’t be able to make the subtle connection.
    Chandra would have us all believe Globalization is the by product of centralized planning i.e regulation. Nothing can be further from the truth, globalization from a historical standpoint falls into 3 categories. Harphoon will share his findings:
    (Harphoon takes over the blue com) Hello all. Generally globalization has 3 main phases: the first from 1450 to around 1850, in which countries and governments opened ip trade with the New World and which was mainly driven by military expansionism. Now what is interesting here based on our research was there was actually a nexus between globalization and the amount of horsepower and wind power. That’s to say technology was a driving factor.
    What we did was model the result of this period with the second phase, that is the period from the second half of 1800 to where we are today, in which global integration was driven by multinationals, here steam, transportation networks, communication again played a determinant role.
    The third phase is of course global interconnectivity in the form of fiber optics and computers which goes on to complete the whole theory that technological advancement was the main cause of globalization and not regulation. We conclude based on our findings there is no connection between globalization and the free market.

  17. Dr Chandra said

    OK, let us move this aside, for one moment. I am going to reserve comment on this because you have obviously done some deep research on this topic and knowing the brotherhood, you chaps can attribute anything under the sun, so I am not going to challenge it.
    Let’s just return to the whole discussion of evolutionary theory and what darkness said about why it has nothing to do with the whole idea of linearity. Now he has provided a rebuttal from a factual standpoint by mentioning the formation of the state of Israel and by saying this has nothing to do with social or historical evolution, let us say I agree tentatively, but let us look at the axiomatic truths which make up the whole anecdotal picture here, can he say the same for everything?
    I say that he cannot. I never ever proposed the theory of evolution should be universally applied. Neither did I ever suggest for one moment that incremental improvements are the only way to carve out competitive advantage. Only what must be continued to be stressed is that the link is very much there and it continues to operate according to a set reference. Now call it what you want, extrapolation, superimposition or even for that matter neural nets. I really don’t care, but if you just look at the field of lets say, evolutionary psychology can we at least agree on a few assumptions that it provides the only coherent account of why all spoken languages must have certain phonemic properties in order to facilitate understanding, now you can say this capacity to understand even has a strategic or survival value. I found this out when I tried to develop programs for talking computers, but that is another story.
    What I am trying to illustrate here is a migration of the sciences. You don’t need to be sociologist to figure out how cultural variants can be easily modeled into gene mutations propagated over time in human minds and the environment only to result in explainable cultural attributes. Agreed?
    In the same that Darwin mentioned in his 3 steps of population based theory. I believe not all the time, but most of the time much of business, politics and economics falls generally into this rough model: first, there is a variation present in all living organism. Secondly, that variation is heritable or transferable in a genetic sense, that’s why I have my mothers nose that sort of thing and my dads bum. You get what I am trying to say. Thirdly, there are different survival and reproduction rates among individuals carrying different variants of a characteristic, depending on the environment etc as a consequence they evolve. The classic case is of course the mimicry of how certain species of animals adopt bright colors and others don’t, but in each case, if they do so, there is a strategic or survival payout and if they don’t again its for the same reason and for those losers that we don’t see around, they just died off because they couldn’t decide whether to wear mascara or lipstick. Not that’s the whole source code in a nutshell, if darkness says all that isn’t important because he highlights a few examples, then I say it is not a coherent way to make sense of things. In fact, I will go as far as to say it is confuses understanding by making coherent and comprehensible statements about the real world with understanding that means making accurate statements about mother nature. It reduces the whole search where science is pitted against mysticism.
    So as you can see, I have provided a framework here of the Darwinian theory as to how it roughly works and how it may be a useful model of us to make sense of politics, economics, sociology and even technological developments, but instead darkness continues to say, no it cannot by giving one or two clever explanations that hardly have the effect of illustrating how they are correct, but none the less statistical exceptions to the anecdotal whole of the truth!

  18. darkness said

    Chandra, I hear you, but let’s pin this sucker down. You say evolutionary theory can be used to make sense of politics etc. I hear you. Let’s for instance, say I believe you. No seriously, let’s say an apple just fell on my head two seconds ago and I say, “I see the light!” Now if that is the truth, can you tell me what logically is the outcome of evolutionary theory – I am not talking about incremental improvements part with the micro evolutionary steps stuff, I already know that already and so does the audience – I am not asking the before and present question. I am asking the after part. You know what I mean don’t you, after we have all developed bigger biceps or quadriceps. After we can perform complex algebra calculations mentally without a scientific calculator, after we have all developed better EQ’s. What happens after that Chandra? What or where is the end point of evolutionary theory? Because I don’t expect most of the audience to know this, but you as a scientist would have to concede that the whole idea of perpetual improvement is like perpetual motion, its simply untenable. So it is fair to say, a point will come when even the fastest 100 meters sprinter will simply not be able to break the speed record, not at least without resorting to steroids or drugs. So I am asking the question Chandra where does the road end and the sea begin Chandra? Can you tell me what is the main operating theorem which operates within the evolutionary theory and where does it finally lead us too?

  19. Dr Chandra said

    darkness what is the point that you are trying to get at. I agree there must be a bell curve. Absolutely, just as the world will finally come to an inexorable end one day. But that doesn’t mean people are still not building pyramids or planning to build model cities. So on one hand I see where you are coming from but the reason why we are not in a position to answer your question is because it is pointless to know what is the end point of evolutionary theory.

  20. Dr Chandra said

    I would like to know why the end is important so I am conceding my right to speak.

    The floor to darkness on why knowing the end of where evolutionary theory is important, please continue.

  21. Darkness said

    Most gracious of you Chandra, we accept the one point advantage / chairman I will take the floor and accept chandra’s challenge on a further point of contradiction.

    I move to close this moot point on evolution after establishing the contradiction.

    I will try my best to explain why it is so important to understand what I call the dynamics of the evolutionary theorem, especially where it leads too.
    Generally my supposition goes like this. Let me begin from the basic building blocks, if we are to adopt evolutionary theory as a guiding theory for explaining economics etc. Then it is vitally important for us to ask firstly where does it all go? Or how does it all pan out? We can speculate no end why this is important, but let me put in the simplest common denominator why this is so critically and vitally important that it may even form much of the decision to be or not to be.
    Consider this, if evolutionary theory makes sense then it must hold a promise of utopia as opposed to dystopia. It must be able to play that conversion role to transform good from bad, efficiency from inefficiency – get it – stand with me here, because we are going to go deeper into the tunnel.
    Makes sense, but what is curious about the whole idea of evolutionary theory is that it doesn’t even promise that as a priori antecedent fact, that is to say, instead of guaranteeing long term and sustainable benefit, it unravels and even spins out of control. Or using a very crude layman’s description of evolutionary theory, there is a expiry date built into to it – a sort of time bomb that operates very much like a mechanism of self destruction. Now I know when I say this, I probably going to get death threats again from some of the academics and especially the scientific community who have already started to label me as some sort of heretic, but please bear with me.
    Since the process of natural selection is supposed to make organisms fitter and more survivable, so why doesn’t evolution not result in a general fitness that progresses incrementally with no sign of drop off. In fact what research evidence shows is that – here where I say bombs away – so are you ready?
    The reason why there is no such thing as unlimited progress is that the environment in which particular species live are themselves changing and , relative to the organism, are usually getting worse, that’s to say they are dying off. So that suggest to me on an initial sub thesis that the whole idea of evolutionary theory is simply a very big swan dive or a great way to wind down. Now I went on to ask why could this be so? And the answer really is quite startlingly simple, natural selection contrary to myth isn’t supposed to the physical or mental status quo like a line that goes up and up till it runs out of paper. It’s a bit, like running on a thread mill, so its descriptive math lingo it’s an attrition value, that means it decays as much of it has a lot to do with keeping up only. So eventually every species becomes extinct. Now I know I am probably going to get a whole lot of dead threats again so I am going to include some attributions here so that those people who hate what I am saying can go and kill those guys who discovered this instead of me.
    Most often cited is the work of biologist Leigh Van Valen who discovered on average from the length of time between the first appearance of a kind of organism in the fossil record and its evntual extinctiontion should increase over the long run of geological time, But that is not what happened, Je found that the avgerage length of time from origini to extinction of a species has not changed over evolutionary tiem but remains surprisingly robust throughout the whole period. That’s to say 99.9% of species eventually become extinct within 10 million years.
    Now what we need to understand here is 10 million years is a relative play on the whole equation of extinction. By this I mean, it very much a metaphor of what is 2 X 2 which has caused a tremendous consternation in the internet. I am not going to explain it here, but keep the word “metaphor” fixed in your mind throughout this as I will come to it latter on.
    The 10 million expiry date could hold true empirically for things that live, breath and generally run around, but by the same formulation could just as well apply to products and jobs or even a broader construct like civilizations or why we no longer use hand phones to only talk – in this case so called life cycle or expiry date could be significantly shorter. Its really a matter of computation and again I would have preferred to explain this with math theorem.
    So in this bell curve model, you could say we may even transpose it to explain roughly, not quantitatively, but at least qualitatively why all great civilizations wither away and die – in every case if we examine the various stages of the life cycle, there are three definable stages. The progress stage, where incremental improvements in technology, laws or politics ratchets up to a point – followed by the plateau stage where they eventually display the first signs the begins the inexorable process of going downhill and finally. The run off or extinction age which occurs where they just go downhill exponentially and eventually die of.
    What I want to emphasis here again is this is a qualitative model, it isn’t supposed to be a quantitative theoretical construct that can even be expected for withstand rigorous scrutiny and its not reasonable to even expect it to grow by a process of falsification.
    But it’s a metaphor that plays on the magic number of 10 million years. So 10 million of 5 million of even 2.5 years is an operative equation that runs through this theory of how things take off, plateau and die. Its based on the idea that anything predicated on a model where the survival of the fittest forms the main thesis must also take stock of its eventual demise.
    Now you could perhaps say this is crack brained logic, but I spent a lot of time doing and even funding my own private research into why certain companies, products and jobs go the way of the dodo bird and guess what I found that in every case there was a co-relation between the competitive environment and its eventual demise.
    Let me just give you all a practical illustration of how this works. We know the Japanese once controlled the electronic products market especially in the media sector. In fact they still do, but what we are seeing in the last 10 years is a gradual shift, where the producers of these products aren’t necessary Japanese, neither do they appear to even have core competence in the area of producing these products.
    What we are increasingly seeing here is that firms like Apple are muscling into the traditional markets of Sony. The same can be said about cameras where Nikon today is losing market share to firms which should not even be in the camera market such as Nokia.
    Now I can go on and connect dots the whole night, but I think this serves to highlight a few key points which ties in to what Chandra mentioned as using evolutionary theory and especially the process of incremental improvements to carve out competitive advantage.
    Firstly from all these illustrations, we can all say that this whole idea of incremental improvement is pretty dead these days, because technology basically moves in quantum leaps. That throws out the question? Is quantum leaping a better way to create competitive advantage? At this point I don’t know, but it is something to consider along side the whole idea of improving just incrementally.
    Now if you think this whole equation of carving out competitive advantage is confined to just the global sales of ipods – you are seriously mistaken, because you could just as well use this model to ask the question whether the scholar system can continue to work to carve out competitive advantage? Or whether just having people with good academic grades guarantees the next generation of good governance?
    But central to the whole idea of quantum leaping brings us up against a branch of math known as chaos theory. Now I know there are many definition of what is chaos theory is. For simplicity sake: chaos theory means nothing can be predicted. And the reason for this is because the environment is so complex that it generates incalculable number of permutations which reduces everything to a random game of bingo.
    Now 10 years ago, if you asked me whether I would take holiday pictures with my phone. I say you have been tripping on bad weed, but hey, this is happening on a mass scale these days and people aren’t even too bothered if those pictures turn out grainy. So what can we say here? Apart from the fact, we are fast acquiring lousy genes that doesn’t allow us to appreciate high quality photos. No I am just joking, but what we can say here is that traditional mindsets have been effectively changed and transformed because technology is being sucked in by the gravity of different products and services platforms and hubs which traditionally don’t do the things that other products and services are supposed to do. So for example just as the mobile phone leveraged on portability to successfully sell the whole idea of being a camera. Many other things out there can do more or less the same thing, but in every case let us not fool ourselves that it is has nothing whatsoever to do with incremental improvement because that suggest a measure of predictability and that to me is why I don’t consider the evolutionary based theory as an effective tool for anything except if you want to guarantee the kiss of death.

  22. nacramanga said

    Gentlemen

    1 point for concede / 3 additional for contradiction / advantage the blue team / chandra to surrenders the quorum to the darkness.

    contradiction has been raised /audience has 5 minutes to propose an order to re-moot or second.

  23. nacramanga said

    5 minutes lee time for audience to raise a re-moot or second a change of subject.

    Motion of concede has been passed.

    Motion of contradiction currently stand unopposed.

    Gentlemen sit it out we need to wait 5 minutes before the motion is carried for.

    I propose a 10 min break

  24. nacramanga said

    2 minutes lee time for audience to raise a re-moot or second a change of subject. / advantage is to the blue team darkness / the point of contradiction is still open to the audience to challenge.

    gentlemen 4 more minutes pls

  25. nacramanga said

    Gentlemen.

    The no challenge from the audience moot is closed on a 3 point advantage blue team on contradiction and concede by Chandra.

    We will be moving to another topic, the floor is yours to the concede / Dr chandra the floor is all yours.

  26. Dr Chandra said

    Mr Chairman, I would like to compliment the blue team especially Harpoon for keeping this debate unusually peaceful. Did you ppl drug darkness? Bc he is unusually well behaved and even tempered?

    Mr Chairman, I would like to raise a complain, but it is unofficial as I do not want to waste time.

    I have propose to move the debate to the political realm and yet we keep seeing him push it to the math and stat side because he knows no one can penetrate his great wall of numbers. Mr Chairman can you please remind him to keep the discussion to the socio –political realm as we have prepared our debate to discuss these matters and nothing else.
    I think we have more or less exhausted the whole issue of competitive advantage. I would like to turn my attention now to debating what is 2 X 2 in the context of socio and political, but before I proceed, I would like darkness to share with us what he first means by all this. That is to say, I want him to first provide us a definitional framework again as he did when we debate the how best to carve out competitive advantage. I don’t believe that definition can be transferred here, not with confusing the discussion. Otherwise Chairman, I really don’t know how to start and he could just as well say to me. Well Chandra, you misunderstood me. So the red team will give darkness the opening right, but please try to keep it short darkness.

  27. darkness said

    Chandra you can exercise a cut off whenever your tank is full. Just hit the space bar twice!

    OK what is 2X2? Well I think most people fail to grasp what I was trying to convey here which was the metaphor of appreciating no single theory can claim to contain the final and absolute truth. So the metaphor of 2×2 advocates a method of trial and error in which knowledge or solutions emerges through a process of falsification. By this I mean our most rational beliefs are not those that are most strongly verified by either the most traditional or popular of techniques, but rather those that have best survived criticism and refutation.
    Central to the whole metaphor of 2X2 is the idea that we and I am not referring to only just those in the scientific community but also the broader spectrum of disciplines ranging from artist or even comedians, that for such a thing as an open anything, doesn’t matter whether it is the learning experience in a laboratory or even the broader definition of what we call the open society – it must be predicated on the assumption where policies are formulated and tested as scientific theories, with those that fail being revised and abandoned. So the 2X2 metaphor is effective because it continually throws away what is bad and instead gravitates to the good, but more importantly the good isn’t so good as to suggest that it needn’t be chucked away if a better tool comes along. (cut off by Chandra)

  28. Dr Chandra said

    OK. I get it, what he is saying that is – that there are many ways to skin a cat and he is saying that now 2X2 has somehow been magically transformed into a metaphor.

    So in short, he doesn’t know what 2X2 is because now it somehow immaterial to the whole issue of considering another one of his theories of multitudes. Let me just say a few things about a multiple stream approach to finding solutions. In short in doesn’t work in science or even to anything in the broader spectrum of the social political sphere.

    What darkness is saying in effect in not so many words is that he is a liberal who is so open minded his brains are spewing out, that’s really all he is saying. So let me just highlight a few points about the liberal approach and why I believe it really doesn’t do anything much except sound good and pander to the collective need in society.

    I am not saying liberalism isn’t a functional political theory, it is, but if we are to make sense of what can work politically, all I saying is it is a pretty lousy tool.

    The reason that it doesn’t work is because it functions solely to a set of axioms. If these axioms made sense then it wouldn’t be an issue, but it doesn’t and that my whole point. Let me give you an example of what I mean, liberalism operates according to this broad axiom or maxim or whatever you want to call it; preferences can be justified only if they make the world as a whole better off. Sounds good right? But wait till you try to start the engine, then everything falls apart. Because if we consider lets say a philosophical question. And I glad I prepared for this. Lets say, do the poor have a claim on the rich simply because they are poor? If we used darkness theory of multitudes it would probably be yes and I don’t disagree, but lets look at it deeper from an operational standpoint. Because although it can be argued that they, the poor have such a claim but only as members of states that derive their authority to redistribute income from an implicit contract with their citizens perhaps under a liberal code. But they are not members of any state that has redistributive duties to all the world’s poor – because no such state exist! So from an operational standpoint it doesn’t half work.

    Secondly what I find disturbing about darkness blend of liberalism is that it is axiom as opposed to equilibrium or pay out driven – that is to say, it operates blindly according to set of principles. For example, liberals believe that gay rights should be a first order principle right, but let us say if there is a direct nexus between aids and lets say the sexual practices of gays and the former is increasing exponentially to present a danger to community – what does liberal theory have to say? A big nothing, because like I mentioned it is axiom driven so there is no provision for trade off’s or even scoping to do anything near cost and benefit approaches to whether it would be prudent to even institute social measures or laws to control an aids pandemic.

    Thirdly, let us consider the entire issue of flexibility here, although on the first reading it would suggest to all of us darkness approach as a multitude of approaches at the end of the day, let me stress a fundamental weakness in his theory – and that is because liberalism doesn’t even have such a thing resembling a cost and benefit calculus. It doesn’t even offer anything close to a coherent way to ensure that facts are properly classified. They cannot be done so axiomatically. Neither does it offer any proposal for how they might actually do the highly contextual, intra executive task which even civil servants today believe it a necessary precondition if they are to do their job effectively. So in short, it is just a very nice fairness is everything fairy tale – but that I am afraid is just rhetoric – because we all know fairness is not everything.

  29. darkness said

    Chairman we request for a 5 min break. Chandra has brought up 3 points.

    Question: does 2X2 necessarily mean that I am liberal? Well I don’t see how he could have drawn such a conclusion, but he has taken a position and if I am going to shift course now, we would just be running around in circles so let us for argument sake say, that yes, I am a liberal.

    I do support the alienable right of gays (but pls note I am heterosexual for the time being at least but the future is anyones guess judging by how the female forummers have been ill treating me in the IS) to have unconditional rights as heterosexuals. Yes, I do believe an axiomatic approach to politics is key as opposed to math method based on trade off etc and finally No, I do not agree an axiomatic approach on liberalism or for that fascism necessarily results in increase inflexibility. 5 minutes chairman.

  30. nacramanga said

    Gentlemen,

    5 min strategy break to confer – darkness has moved for another motion on contradiction / chandra do you concede the point?

  31. Dr Chandra said

    No I do not concede chairman, but I protest that he needs a whole 5 min to answer a simple question!

    It seems the brotherhood likes to dish out special privileges to their own kind!

  32. nacramanga said

    chandra darkness will moves a motion to desist on a point of moot do you agree?

  33. dr chandra said

    I came here for a debate and he wants to play sudden death?

    No!

  34. nacramanga said

    He is asking for another 5 minutes to reply, it is long he has, but he says. “we can all go home and feed the cat.”

  35. Dr Chandra said

    I dont have a choice do I. The brotherhood are a bunch of thugs!

  36. darkness said

    Before I begin let me demolish what Chandra mention earlier concerning 2×2 –
    “I get it, what he is saying is that there are many ways to skin a cat and he is saying that now 2X2 has somehow been magically transformed into a metaphor.”
    This is wrong. But let me address his 3 points first. The first point Chandra makes is liberalism advocates an axiom driven approach. That is true but the same can be said about federalism, fascism or even communism. How is liberalism as a branch of political science is so different to lets say communism, socialism or for the matter welfarism. In every case, axioms do perform an important function of fleshing out the conceptual framework which converges much of the stuff that would make any political theory work. So let us be clear here, every political school of thought requires axioms, it really a matter of degree.
    Question: Is the liberal stream more axiom driven then lets say the free market ideology? Yes, most definitely, but the issue that Chandra should have highlighted but didn’t is whether the whole idea of adopting an axiom driven philosophy is any way less effective that a free market ideology. He would have us believe it is not. Because according to him it sounds good but doesn’t work, so lets examine a few practical examples that we can all relate too. Take the case of a woman right to abort? How would we resolve this hubris, according to Chandra’s political philosophy which he omitted to mention quite cleverly I might add for strategic reasons so that we cannot even pin point his errors conceptually, we need a logical process or procedural analysis that works on pay out and yields etc. In fact he goes on to repeat the importance of having such a mechanism repeatedly. So how would you proceed Chandra?
    Red team –chandra – naturally a mechanistic approach would require us to solicit differing viewpoints throughout the spectrum of society, but only the majority. So if lets say we live in a predominantly catholic country like Spain. Then it is necessary to disprove the catholic theory that life begins from the moment of conception. It’s a simple mechanistic process, are cells in a petri-dish necessary a form of life. If it is then, abortion should not be legalised. If it isn’t then it should darkness. Quite straightforward.
    Blue Team – darkness – quite straight forward according chandra – a matter of just determining the definition of life. What he conveniently omitted to mention was in both evolution and creation we have rival religious and scientific theories to what actually constitutes life – rival stories of origins, rival judgements abt the meaning of what life is or should be – rival moral dictates and above all rival eschatologies – so I really, there is nothing simple about it.
    Let me just illustrate this in a dramatic way, chandra lets assume that one day biopolis was burning down, which would you plumb to save, 5 petri dishes or a helpless fiona Xie in a short skirt?
    Red team – chandra – mr chairman, you see I have to put up with this sort of nonsense. You know it is very sad, because it was all going quite well, but now we can all see when he gets corner all the drama just comes out like exorcist like that (cut off)
    Chairman – overuled chandra answer the question please, because you said it was a mechanistic process of logic, so I really don’t see why you cant decide. I know what I will do.
    Red team – chandra – OK I would save them both because petri dishes are small and I can put it into her handbag and carry her out. Please mr chairman can you please ask him to stick to my three points.
    Blue team – darkness – ok so in short chandra doesn’t really know and to be honest, no one really knows and even if they did know, there would be others have a counter view which are just as valid so how do we resolve the hubris – there is only way one – through axioms – because if we are to use the liberal approach it simply states quite plainly that to defend a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy it is not necessary to prove that the catholic position that the fetus is a person from the conception is false. It is sufficient to show that under the liberal system of individual rights, the first order principle embodied in catholic doctrine cannot legitimately be used to constrain private choice. This argument could even be accepted by those who hold that abortion morally wrong. The same issue about gay rights. In the liberal view, their defense isn’t predicated on a census whether X or Y number of people are dying of aids, but rather based on the narrower political principle that private sexual conduct shouldn’t fall under the sphere of government control.
    In both cases it is axiomatic, this I don’t doubt but what it goes to disprove once and for all is contrary to what chandra says, liberalism is wishy washy, it is the reverse, it provides moral clarity. And more importantly it sets the contextual framework
    On his second point he makes the issue of trade off analysis and yield studies as a basis for governance, now again I cannot understand how that would really work to form any political philosophy. I think what he was trying to say here is the free market economy should prevail and a laissez –faire style of governance would be optimal. Were you trying to say that Chandra
    Red team – chandra – yes only because that sort of government would provide more lattitude for a scientific approach rather than one based solely on principles.
    Blue team – darkness – You know there is a very good reason why the founding fathers of American did not just say, “hey when you people come into power just engage in any practice whose benefits pays the highest dividends” as chandra would have it, but instead struggled to articulate a limited number of fundamental principles and enshrine them above the everyday pragmatic judgments of the statistical majority. They did it that way because they foresaw what modern history has shown to be all too true – that while democracy is a counter weight to tyranny, it can also facilitate another sort of tyranny – the tyranny of the majority against the statistical minority that was why they specifically incorporate individual rights to be protected in the constitution and by doing so made it clear that even the statistical minority would be protected.
    Democracy is not about statistical manipulation, it is not about trade off’s, it is all about making sure that the legislature can never ever be trusted to use their position to oppress the minority. I don’t care how many ppl support X number of people of Y number of causes, but if the support ethos is wrong or that cause is warped, then in my book that is not freedom of speech and has even less to do with democracy, it just a lynch mob.
    Chandra trust me we need axioms more than you can possibly think.
    Finally, he makes the assertion an axiomatic approach leads to inflexibility and rigidity because that is dogma based. Alright there is currency to this sort of argument and this is also where my 2X2 metaphor that I asked all of you to keep to one side kicks in – because if we consider the whole idea of liberalism so far it has only leveraged one method, that is legislating to protect the rights of gays, racial minorities etc. I do not doubt this is effective, but it is at best a 2X2 approach that uses the basic notation of math and so it is questionable whether that sort of approach is necessarily effective. Bear in mind we are moving here to a discussion of what is effective in the context of 2X2. And I say to you legislation isn’t effective, it may form a first line defense, but it nothing more that an extension of chandra robot theory scientific approach to governance. When you legislate you are simply providing a reward and penalty scale equation to regulate conformance, it is primitive as it appeals to the lowest common denominator of a human.
    That is why I say another variant would be to apply another method to derive at the value of 4 using 2×2 but this time with line drawings or with a set of tarot cards, I don’t know, but you get the drift – that the solution may perhaps lie somewhere instead of liberals or any form of govt resorting solely to legislation to defend individual rights, they should instead focus on changing majority opinion.
    A derivative of this again plays another round of 2X2 and ask what is the best way of doing this? I say to you any discussion that brackets a debate or discussion on any topic be it gay rights or whatever too completely just its own disenchantment and worst still promotes radicalism. Like I said it is a play on another way to get the 4 because it turns the whole idea of political theory on its head – radicalism only thrives in an environment where no one is allow to speak his mind or think freely – because it that sort of desolate environment all it takes is a religious leader who drives a sports car to come in a tell you how you should live your life etc.
    So again chandra the question that I now ask can we afford not to have an axiomatic approach? And what really is the cost of a mechanistic scientitifc approach that only promotes benefits/ yields only?
    The price too high, too high.

  37. Dr chandra said

    Chairman,

    We waive a reply / motion for run out to end the debate chairman. No concessions does darkness accept a draw again?

  38. darkness said

    We second only because he never insulted me this evening.

  39. nacramanga said

    motion for a draw is open to the audience to second please. Any takers?

  40. Harphoon said

    Mr Chairman, the blue team seconds the motion to draw as proposed by Dr Chandra.

    May I just say I enjoyed that very much. I just want to say, it is my first time and I learnt alot by just sitting in the box.

    Thank you so much dr chandra, dr doom and Mandrake. Shall we exchange jerseys now?

  41. Dr Chandra said

    Harphoon,

    It is always a pleasure to be your guest, bc you are really quite a well mannered and polite boy.

    I only wish there were more of you in the brotherhood.

    Thank you for seconding the draw it was very gracious of you to do so.

    I too enjoyed this session very much. I my view there was too much tactics and strategy, but content wise, it was definitely there in one way or another.

  42. darkness said

    did anyone bring any vodka?

  43. Nacramanga said

    Dear readers,

    The outcome is a technical draw once again on the grounds on concession on the part of blue team to accept a motion of draw from the red team / no clear winner emerged / we would like to congratulate Dr chandra for playing a brilliant game of strategy and tactics / in my view it is one of the best play, I have seen in years of making the best out of a lost cause / as for darkness once again due to his typical cavalier non chalant attitude he has squandered a great opportunity for securing an outright victory / we thank you once again for staying up. If you have any questions pls bring them forward. Meanwhile pls do not mind if the debaters talk amongs themselves.

  44. KOHO said

    Nacramanga

    SLF turn out was so – so only less than 8,500. I think we were slow / so many of them fell off /

  45. urbana said

    two lines fell off half way. We lost alot of readers there. I still trying to find out what happened.

  46. harphoon said

    KOHO et all.

    Your team did good. We had alot of technical problems on this / losing 50% of our readers. But it is a learning curve.

    Inspirid,

    Many thanks again. It was a great learning experience for me and it exceeded my expectations in more ways than one. I am going to sleep now thanks.

  47. KOHO said

    We are signing off now. Good night all and God Bless!

  48. urbana said

    I think it is time for us to throw away the SLF’s – we have outgrown it by a factor of at least 2 or 3 or more, just my pov.

    Good nite all. I really enjoyed this run.

  49. inspir3d said

    Hi this debate was better than the previous one i think.

    much more civil and slightly more accessible. do build on this experience to improve in future debates.

    ciao

  50. dr chandra said

    Hi all,

    actually I was quite surprised by darkness tonite, did you slip something into his tea inspir3d. :=

    btw sorry for the misunderstanding. Harpoon explained it all. A big sorry and a bear hug to follow. Silly me.

    Very demanding debate this one. I hate to admit it, but darkness was diabolically sharp and on the ball on this one.

    I just don’t know why he didnt go for the kill when he had it all and gave in on a concession for a draw.

    Very strange fellow, very strange.

    Goodnite for having me inspir3d. We hope to write something for the IS soon. I have discussed with harpoon.

    I really enjoyed it this time despite the technicals. None the less have to agree with that boy, harpoon, its all a learning curve.

    Yours Dr Chandra “the light”

  51. scholarboy said

    Red Team,

    Well played. I don’t think, I have played such a technically demanding chess game bfr.

    Brilliant move on the concede, you checkmated darkness on the repose. That was our main attack strategy and you really took the wind out of us.

    I really must admit. It was a brilliant move Chandra.

    But we had you on the second with enough space for the run in.

    So even I am surprised why darkness opted for a concede on a draw.

    I have only debated 5 times, but this is the most technical game I have played and to be honest. I agree completely with inspir3d and harp boy, its all a learning experience.

    Thank you sir and all. Good nite and again very well played again.

    Regards and cheers to the rest and do write alongside us in the IS.

    Next time, there is always a next time 🙂

    nite inspir3d, thanks KOHO et al, brilliant on the technical.

    I really enjoyed this one.

    Scholarboy.

  52. inspir3d said

    hi Dr Chandra, no worries about the incident. it is all good.

    it’s a pleasure to have u in this debate, i look forward to your writing in the future i am sure it will add an invaluabe new dimension to IS.

    cheers

  53. aurora said

    🙂

    I am the only girl here and none of the boys want to talk to me except KOHO. And he doesn’t talk much. I don’t know whats happening 90% of time, but I enjoy organizing this events, I am girl geek 🙂 thank you webmaster of the intelligent singaporean for having the interspacing logistics team over. I am always the last to post. They all MCP here!

    I am happy. I can serve.

    Cheers & Peace out

    Aurora.

  54. inspir3d said

    hi Aurora i don’t know about the boys.

    but girls are always welcome around this website 🙂

    cheers

  55. debbie said

    “but girls are always welcome around this website.”

    Thats rich, half the time we get verbally abused here no end, so who in their right brain would even want to post. Dowanlah.

    The only time when he’s really nice is when he is peddling subscriptions or if he wants something. Then he really turns on his charm.

    Completely useless, undependable and irresponsible.

  56. anongal said

    Not so bad what? We get to hit them back dont we???

  57. caleb said

    haha 🙂

  58. jeannie said

    Hello Brotherhood & IS or whoever.

    Very entertaining. I guess you ppl did the best with the avaliable technology. Despite that the effort was good. As far as the quality. I found it better as compared to the last. Although I am still somewhat confused by the rules or what really is meant by the socratic debate school, method or procedure. To me it seems very confusing. Nonetheless a very good effort. Keep it up! And I shall most definitely look forward to the next show.

    I dont want to press but it will be nice also if the bro press could write something serious for a change. I am not saying the travelogue series is boring or what. On the contrary. I find it extremely informative and educational. Only too much of a good thing can sometimes spoil the mystery of it all. So I really hope something serious will be planned in the future. Cheers!

  59. Mr Lim Teck Heng said

    Dear sir / madam,

    I am writitng just to say, I enjoyed the great debate very much. I didnt see it live as I was holidaying with my family. And only managed to read it today. I think we can all agree practice makes perfect. There were a few areas that were a trifle soggy and wet, but what the hell, you guys have to start somewhere. And people who criticize it or worse still pretend it didnt take place are in the long run just a bit like ostriches who bury their head in the sand. Really it changes and alters absolutely nothing. Neither does it stop or slow what will eventually come – change! So I really commend you all and especially the owners of the IS for taking it all to a new level. I think this is very good for some of your new readers as well. As I believe there are certain self elected prominent figures in the blog scene who insist on calling you people teenagers. I think this sets the record straight and anyone reading all this will simply have to say. My, my it certainly wasn’t like this when I was in secondary 3. Once again many thanks and my sincere regards to Mr Darkness and his associates along with the kind owners.

  60. miss ong said

    My first time. However found it interesting and very informative. I am reading it in batches very slowly, but it is good. Its a start fellas. I know someone said there was some technical problem, but from the readers side, it was good. Thanks for bringing this to us all. Whatever it is, it takes a tremendous amount of planning and effort. Nothing comes out of nothing. So thanks to all and greatly appreciated.

  61. Tan.B.L said

    Hello Bambi & Co and the Intelligent Sing,

    I missed the GD, but catching up frantically on it. In bits and pieces, bc some of it is quite lengthy and heavy. However, very thought provoking material, some of it was surprisingly well researched.

    IMHO, this round was considerable better than the last, not only content wise but also the spirit between the teams.

    I just want to ask when will you fellas be coming out with the serious articles.

    I think many of us have been expecting this. To be honest with you there is very little out there.

    Tan B L

    Yours Sincerely

  62. […] in the blogosphere, with centres of power forming here and there, examples include SingaporeAngle, IntelligentSingaporean, Tomorrow.Sg, TheVoidDeck, et al, and the various larger than life figures who stake their claims […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: