Saturday, February 28, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
dream a little dream of me
something uncommon happened in e last few months. infact, it's a series of events.
i started appearing in people's dreams. or, in another way. people started dreaming of me. (i duno how this all sounds but yea, tt was what happened)
of course not to e same person. if so tt would be of urgent issue; i would need to find out why. and im sure i appear in more dreams of more people, but they dont mention. it would be quite weird to tell people tt right? and it can be really random coz i dream of random people all e time too.
but three times, three different people? and all three came to tell em to me.
first was jayne. of course being e first i was most surprised. she told me i was e third party in her rship! it caused e bf to become jealous and angry (duh of course). why me?!
then vpaul came up to me at e CS benches out of nowhere. related tt i became a psycho killer who tried to kill her. method of choice? i put bombs made of mint clorets - therefore they were damn small - into her shoe to blow her up. not sure if i succeeded though.
lastly e longtime CS friend karen. she told me we were jogging together at night. this is rather chronological and progressive. we saw some friends (identity unknown) and said hi. we continued jogging, cutting through under e highway too. it ended as we jogged into an aircon room.
oh please, people-who-read-dreams-and-decipher-them, tell me what others are going through and who am i.
i started appearing in people's dreams. or, in another way. people started dreaming of me. (i duno how this all sounds but yea, tt was what happened)
of course not to e same person. if so tt would be of urgent issue; i would need to find out why. and im sure i appear in more dreams of more people, but they dont mention. it would be quite weird to tell people tt right? and it can be really random coz i dream of random people all e time too.
but three times, three different people? and all three came to tell em to me.
first was jayne. of course being e first i was most surprised. she told me i was e third party in her rship! it caused e bf to become jealous and angry (duh of course). why me?!
then vpaul came up to me at e CS benches out of nowhere. related tt i became a psycho killer who tried to kill her. method of choice? i put bombs made of mint clorets - therefore they were damn small - into her shoe to blow her up. not sure if i succeeded though.
lastly e longtime CS friend karen. she told me we were jogging together at night. this is rather chronological and progressive. we saw some friends (identity unknown) and said hi. we continued jogging, cutting through under e highway too. it ended as we jogged into an aircon room.
oh please, people-who-read-dreams-and-decipher-them, tell me what others are going through and who am i.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Stella Eccellente
sorry ah. some publicity can. thanks. haha.
Hey Residents of Hall 4!!
We will be having a Joint Hall Idol contest together with hall 5 and 7 - Stella Eccellente 3, on the 10th of March at Hall 15 function room. Tickets are going at $2 inclusive of refreshments and a lucky draw. The finalists from our hall are Isabelle, Thiam Peng and Yi Xuan. Do come down to support and vote for them! You can get the tickets from me via email (Ling Qin - memories_que@hotmail.com). Tickets are on a first-come-first-serve basis. Do take note that only the first 50 tickets get to vote for the contestants!!
Regards,
Ling Qin
Cultural Secretary
22nd JCRC
NTU Hall of Residence 4
Hey Residents of Hall 4!!
We will be having a Joint Hall Idol contest together with hall 5 and 7 - Stella Eccellente 3, on the 10th of March at Hall 15 function room. Tickets are going at $2 inclusive of refreshments and a lucky draw. The finalists from our hall are Isabelle, Thiam Peng and Yi Xuan. Do come down to support and vote for them! You can get the tickets from me via email (Ling Qin - memories_que@hotmail.com). Tickets are on a first-come-first-serve basis. Do take note that only the first 50 tickets get to vote for the contestants!!
Regards,
Ling Qin
Cultural Secretary
22nd JCRC
NTU Hall of Residence 4
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
'tis the week to go school
not just readings, essays, labs, lectures and mugging. this is what a university education should be about. easily e best week ive had as an undergrad.
on Monday,
discussed an arty-farty term called mise-en-scène and talked about Barton Fink, Talk to Her and Cache, three critically acclaimed films.
visited Dr Genaro Castro-Vazquez of Sociology department and listened to him talk about knowledge, power and discourse. and of course Foucault.
on Tuesday,
watched and studied film masterpiece Chungking Express in tutorial.
looked at e highly controversial Stanford prison study, a two-week experiment cut after six days due to ethical concerns.
took an essay-based test on Marx, Weber and Durkheim, e 'holy trinity' of Sociology.
on Wednesday,
looked at how the government resettled the villagers of Lim Chu Kang for e sake of "nation-building" in independent documentary Diminishing Memories.
had lecture on food journalism, and individually reviewed a sour-sweet chew and a slice of garlic biscuit.
on Thursday,
had our tutorial at ntu's palette cafe to review e place's breakfast.
given an Oscar sheet to predict e winners this month, for extra credits.
on Friday,
listened to Michael Corbidge read us a children story.
performed children drama.
wrote a piece of children fiction.
let's remember it. e week of 16th to 20th February 2009.
viva la vida.
on Monday,
discussed an arty-farty term called mise-en-scène and talked about Barton Fink, Talk to Her and Cache, three critically acclaimed films.
visited Dr Genaro Castro-Vazquez of Sociology department and listened to him talk about knowledge, power and discourse. and of course Foucault.
on Tuesday,
watched and studied film masterpiece Chungking Express in tutorial.
looked at e highly controversial Stanford prison study, a two-week experiment cut after six days due to ethical concerns.
took an essay-based test on Marx, Weber and Durkheim, e 'holy trinity' of Sociology.
on Wednesday,
looked at how the government resettled the villagers of Lim Chu Kang for e sake of "nation-building" in independent documentary Diminishing Memories.
had lecture on food journalism, and individually reviewed a sour-sweet chew and a slice of garlic biscuit.
on Thursday,
had our tutorial at ntu's palette cafe to review e place's breakfast.
given an Oscar sheet to predict e winners this month, for extra credits.
on Friday,
listened to Michael Corbidge read us a children story.
performed children drama.
wrote a piece of children fiction.
let's remember it. e week of 16th to 20th February 2009.
viva la vida.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
a midas touch
the principal item i took away from the Tri-Uni forum, featuring the student councils from us, NUS and SMU, is this. in that 3 hours, it was 5 minutes that seemed to be all that mattered.
the SMU union president went on and on, after a question on "activism", about how in the Singapore context it's more about relationships built with the students, serving them, and fostering "student life", for a more diplomatic term. but what came out even clearer and punchier was this idea:
student leaders like us do this with a passion. we hope to bring something to the places we care about. but why does it usually fall short? of course people say they achieve things but seriously im sure u know what im referring to. why is it that however hard we try to bring a certain varsity/faculty unity only so little succeed? because, there is no culture for student activism. tell me what you think of when this term pops up. most Singaporean students expect student activism to come from the union, the student leaders etc. they complain and complain, but they pass that frustration/anger/disappointment/unhappiness to the "necessary organisation", and from there expect things to happen. i can tell u from my position, which is some hell of a position, that most of u do not care to do more than talk. when the situation calls for, there is also a lack of courage. u want things to happen, but always it must be others to do it. student activism is so influential abroad because they mean STUDENTS. a big plural form. they dare to do, and they do it together. they don't sit back. they sit down, to protest. they do all sorts of shit to shake an establishment. we are the representatives yes, but we need the backing. such vile attacks on us student leaders are so damn hypocritical u know.
that is why, u realise, the SU and what-nots are always "f***ed up" to u. there is some sort of cognitive dissonance at work here i tell u. we have Western ideals, but Asian personality.
the SMU union president's soundbite: "don't find fault. find the remedy."
hwei yun, NTU union president's: "complaints are welcome, but constructive feedback is much appreciated."
you cant make more sense than that.
interestingly, the same pair shot again. "but may i ask again, what does the term "student activism" really mean to you?"
and there was silence and uneasiness at the chairing table for 5 to 10 seconds.
oh and i also found out. only today. sorry if i seem a little ignorant. that Joint-Hall doesn't stand alone in a hierarchy away from us. we're all in the same tree. i finally found out why JH isn't in the Student Council. because the Council is made up of representatives of the top tier of student leaders. Students' Union, presidents of school committees, and presidents of the 3 major clubs. the JCRCs are in the next tier below.
the SMU union president went on and on, after a question on "activism", about how in the Singapore context it's more about relationships built with the students, serving them, and fostering "student life", for a more diplomatic term. but what came out even clearer and punchier was this idea:
student leaders like us do this with a passion. we hope to bring something to the places we care about. but why does it usually fall short? of course people say they achieve things but seriously im sure u know what im referring to. why is it that however hard we try to bring a certain varsity/faculty unity only so little succeed? because, there is no culture for student activism. tell me what you think of when this term pops up. most Singaporean students expect student activism to come from the union, the student leaders etc. they complain and complain, but they pass that frustration/anger/disappointment/unhappiness to the "necessary organisation", and from there expect things to happen. i can tell u from my position, which is some hell of a position, that most of u do not care to do more than talk. when the situation calls for, there is also a lack of courage. u want things to happen, but always it must be others to do it. student activism is so influential abroad because they mean STUDENTS. a big plural form. they dare to do, and they do it together. they don't sit back. they sit down, to protest. they do all sorts of shit to shake an establishment. we are the representatives yes, but we need the backing. such vile attacks on us student leaders are so damn hypocritical u know.
that is why, u realise, the SU and what-nots are always "f***ed up" to u. there is some sort of cognitive dissonance at work here i tell u. we have Western ideals, but Asian personality.
the SMU union president's soundbite: "don't find fault. find the remedy."
hwei yun, NTU union president's: "complaints are welcome, but constructive feedback is much appreciated."
you cant make more sense than that.
interestingly, the same pair shot again. "but may i ask again, what does the term "student activism" really mean to you?"
and there was silence and uneasiness at the chairing table for 5 to 10 seconds.
oh and i also found out. only today. sorry if i seem a little ignorant. that Joint-Hall doesn't stand alone in a hierarchy away from us. we're all in the same tree. i finally found out why JH isn't in the Student Council. because the Council is made up of representatives of the top tier of student leaders. Students' Union, presidents of school committees, and presidents of the 3 major clubs. the JCRCs are in the next tier below.
Monday, February 02, 2009
oh god i wanna cry with him.
the mortal side of an immortal.
4 1/2 hours before it, Roger Federer was still considered by most as the greatest and most complete tennis player ever, on the brink of equalling Pete Sampras' majors record, a matter of time before he surpasses it.
Federer didnt just win matches, tournaments and grand slams, he made them look easy. he obliterated opponents. he has every weapon every other player has, it's tough work to pinpoint a glaring weakness in him, and he delivers breathtaking tennis. he wins on every surface, and on clay only a certain young Spaniard is his nemesis. he went for a monster record 237 weeks at the summit of tennis' best, able to finish years of playing hundreds of matches with only a couple of losses, an incredible achievement in the modern era.
Wimbledon 2008. they called the grass there his second home. and the player who's consistently beaten him on clay, finally did it. Rafael Nadal took the grasscourt major and ended a legendary run. he followed it up with the Olympics gold, and tennis' landscape has thus been altered.
this is no more a one-man dominance. if Federer was so unbelievable and seemingly peerless, how good is Nadal?
4 1/2 hours later, suddenly Federer isn't divine anymore. either he has faltered, or someone has caught up.
for the first time in a long while, Federer started a match not being the higher seed and had to serve second. it was a funny feeling and sight. and he piled onto watchers that eccentricity by playing and feeling inferior. it felt like he came in as underdog, and that it'd take lots of strategising and a monumental effort to beat Nadal.
and yes it was tough. as the "most complete player ever", Federer actually required a game plan to win, while Nadal seemed like he just needed to play his own game.
and that was considering Nadal had played a 5 1/4 hours semi-final 27 hours after Federer played his. he was supposed to be tired. Federer was supposed to play a drop-shot game, or even if in Nadal's famed baseline rallies, he could tire out.
in the end it all didnt matter. whatever Federer tried, Nadal returned even stronger. he had no chance at rallies, no chance playing baseline, managed a paltry few drop-shots, volley game rarely good against Nadal's precise passing shots, and backhand was exposed time and again. only Federer's refined forehand was wielding magic, on a night he acknowledged his deadly first-serve was needed, but didnt come.
they say against someone like Nadal, who never gives up any point, u only make it if u hit winners. that's how Federer can beat him. and it wasnt that he didnt try. he dished out 71 winners against Nadal's 50. yet still lost. by the end of the epic battle, Federer had won 174 to 173 points, yet still lost the match and championship. it all came down to unforced errors, service and break points. Nadal is a man who makes errors look like they're not human and not supposed to happen.
almost out of nowhere, Nadal the mortal has prevented Federer the immortal from speeding away. grabbing him from below and dragging him down. he has derailed the Federer Express. ending his Wimbledon relationship. gatecrashed his hardcourt kingdom.
i think it suffices to say what i've said. let the most respected writer/columnist of mine continue.
Rohit Brijnath, Straits Times
"Roger Federer can pick the place, the time, the circumstance. He can take Rafael Nadal to the North Pole, dress him in a thin tuxedo, and allow him one serve. It doesn't matter. Federer will still lose. In his mind, right now, he simply doesn't believe he can beat the Spaniard.
[Nadal] beat the Swiss after running for 5hr 14min in the semi-finals and then 4hr 23min last night. He has beaten the Swiss in five of the seven Grand Slam finals they have played. And he has made us rethink Federer's status as the greatest ever and elevated himself into the argument. At 22, he has won six Grand Slam titles. At the same age, Federer had two.
Nadal won this match, but Federer will also believe he lost it. Perhaps he wept because he needed his first serve, needed cheap points against a maniacal baseliner, yet had a miserable first-serve percentage of 52. Perhaps Federer wept for all the chances he had, but could not take. He lost break points and could not capitalise when he led.
When Nadal runs, he is driven by muscles, and youth, but also by a desperation that provokes him into greatness. He hit so many staggering winners from so many unlikely places that Federer by the last set was simply resigned. Everyone in the fifth set fears Federer, but Federer evidently fears Nadal.
[W]ith the match finely balanced, [Federer] needed to embrace risk yet chose passivity. Instead of stepping into a few returns, as Nadal did on breakpoints, he engaged in rallies that played to the Spaniard's strength. Had he grabbed the third set, and gone up two sets to one, victory was not yet assured, but the Swiss has a powerful reputation as a frontrunner.
It was a match as thrilling as it was deeply poignant. There is on this hardy land of brusque heroes a great affection for Federer, and his tears at the microphone left a stadium in a sort of mourning. They had lifted him, cajoled him and then, as he broke down, embraced him with their cheers. It seemed almost like a farewell. One man's time is passing, but another's has come."
yes, what we're seeing is the best player in the world unable to beat another player at his own game no matter how he tried. who is to say now who is the best player in the world. the legend or the current numero uno?
at the rate Nadal is speeding, u cannot bet against him breaking Sampras' record or even Federer's new mark. it doesn't matter Federer is trailing Nadal 6-13 in head-to-head, the important figures are that Nadal has won five of the seven grand slam finals between them. if Federer had topped those Sampras would not be the same man anymore.
a year ago, Federer was down, and the Australian Open looked a long shot. but he was still the best around. then, Nadal played second fiddle and was only famed as the clay king. today, Nadal holds court over three surfaces, something Federer has never done, is the Olympic gold medallist, and has the chance to do the tennis Grand Slam this 2009. the power has really shifted.
it was the first time i saw an emotional Federer. a player known for his steeliness in the toughest times. never reacting to a lost point, always looking ahead. a player who once knew that if he played to his best, he was unstoppable. the normally calm Federer was annoyed and dismayed when he made poor decisions and returns. he was shouting "come on!" much more and conspicuously so when a point went his way. and he teared uncontrollably when he received his runner-up plate. a true champion who hates losing. he said it's the worst feeling, standing there infront of thousands with nowhere to hide. like a public shaming. that's how losing is to him.
maybe Federer will win the most number of grand slams. maybe he will be known as the best ever for quite awhile. but maybe his era has ended. people will probably remember this era as the Federer-Nadal rivalry, two individuals who stood above the rest. not the one defining man that is Federer.
4 1/2 hours before it, Roger Federer was still considered by most as the greatest and most complete tennis player ever, on the brink of equalling Pete Sampras' majors record, a matter of time before he surpasses it.
Federer didnt just win matches, tournaments and grand slams, he made them look easy. he obliterated opponents. he has every weapon every other player has, it's tough work to pinpoint a glaring weakness in him, and he delivers breathtaking tennis. he wins on every surface, and on clay only a certain young Spaniard is his nemesis. he went for a monster record 237 weeks at the summit of tennis' best, able to finish years of playing hundreds of matches with only a couple of losses, an incredible achievement in the modern era.
Wimbledon 2008. they called the grass there his second home. and the player who's consistently beaten him on clay, finally did it. Rafael Nadal took the grasscourt major and ended a legendary run. he followed it up with the Olympics gold, and tennis' landscape has thus been altered.
this is no more a one-man dominance. if Federer was so unbelievable and seemingly peerless, how good is Nadal?
4 1/2 hours later, suddenly Federer isn't divine anymore. either he has faltered, or someone has caught up.
for the first time in a long while, Federer started a match not being the higher seed and had to serve second. it was a funny feeling and sight. and he piled onto watchers that eccentricity by playing and feeling inferior. it felt like he came in as underdog, and that it'd take lots of strategising and a monumental effort to beat Nadal.
and yes it was tough. as the "most complete player ever", Federer actually required a game plan to win, while Nadal seemed like he just needed to play his own game.
and that was considering Nadal had played a 5 1/4 hours semi-final 27 hours after Federer played his. he was supposed to be tired. Federer was supposed to play a drop-shot game, or even if in Nadal's famed baseline rallies, he could tire out.
in the end it all didnt matter. whatever Federer tried, Nadal returned even stronger. he had no chance at rallies, no chance playing baseline, managed a paltry few drop-shots, volley game rarely good against Nadal's precise passing shots, and backhand was exposed time and again. only Federer's refined forehand was wielding magic, on a night he acknowledged his deadly first-serve was needed, but didnt come.
they say against someone like Nadal, who never gives up any point, u only make it if u hit winners. that's how Federer can beat him. and it wasnt that he didnt try. he dished out 71 winners against Nadal's 50. yet still lost. by the end of the epic battle, Federer had won 174 to 173 points, yet still lost the match and championship. it all came down to unforced errors, service and break points. Nadal is a man who makes errors look like they're not human and not supposed to happen.
almost out of nowhere, Nadal the mortal has prevented Federer the immortal from speeding away. grabbing him from below and dragging him down. he has derailed the Federer Express. ending his Wimbledon relationship. gatecrashed his hardcourt kingdom.
i think it suffices to say what i've said. let the most respected writer/columnist of mine continue.
Rohit Brijnath, Straits Times
"Roger Federer can pick the place, the time, the circumstance. He can take Rafael Nadal to the North Pole, dress him in a thin tuxedo, and allow him one serve. It doesn't matter. Federer will still lose. In his mind, right now, he simply doesn't believe he can beat the Spaniard.
[Nadal] beat the Swiss after running for 5hr 14min in the semi-finals and then 4hr 23min last night. He has beaten the Swiss in five of the seven Grand Slam finals they have played. And he has made us rethink Federer's status as the greatest ever and elevated himself into the argument. At 22, he has won six Grand Slam titles. At the same age, Federer had two.
Nadal won this match, but Federer will also believe he lost it. Perhaps he wept because he needed his first serve, needed cheap points against a maniacal baseliner, yet had a miserable first-serve percentage of 52. Perhaps Federer wept for all the chances he had, but could not take. He lost break points and could not capitalise when he led.
When Nadal runs, he is driven by muscles, and youth, but also by a desperation that provokes him into greatness. He hit so many staggering winners from so many unlikely places that Federer by the last set was simply resigned. Everyone in the fifth set fears Federer, but Federer evidently fears Nadal.
[W]ith the match finely balanced, [Federer] needed to embrace risk yet chose passivity. Instead of stepping into a few returns, as Nadal did on breakpoints, he engaged in rallies that played to the Spaniard's strength. Had he grabbed the third set, and gone up two sets to one, victory was not yet assured, but the Swiss has a powerful reputation as a frontrunner.
It was a match as thrilling as it was deeply poignant. There is on this hardy land of brusque heroes a great affection for Federer, and his tears at the microphone left a stadium in a sort of mourning. They had lifted him, cajoled him and then, as he broke down, embraced him with their cheers. It seemed almost like a farewell. One man's time is passing, but another's has come."
yes, what we're seeing is the best player in the world unable to beat another player at his own game no matter how he tried. who is to say now who is the best player in the world. the legend or the current numero uno?
at the rate Nadal is speeding, u cannot bet against him breaking Sampras' record or even Federer's new mark. it doesn't matter Federer is trailing Nadal 6-13 in head-to-head, the important figures are that Nadal has won five of the seven grand slam finals between them. if Federer had topped those Sampras would not be the same man anymore.
a year ago, Federer was down, and the Australian Open looked a long shot. but he was still the best around. then, Nadal played second fiddle and was only famed as the clay king. today, Nadal holds court over three surfaces, something Federer has never done, is the Olympic gold medallist, and has the chance to do the tennis Grand Slam this 2009. the power has really shifted.
it was the first time i saw an emotional Federer. a player known for his steeliness in the toughest times. never reacting to a lost point, always looking ahead. a player who once knew that if he played to his best, he was unstoppable. the normally calm Federer was annoyed and dismayed when he made poor decisions and returns. he was shouting "come on!" much more and conspicuously so when a point went his way. and he teared uncontrollably when he received his runner-up plate. a true champion who hates losing. he said it's the worst feeling, standing there infront of thousands with nowhere to hide. like a public shaming. that's how losing is to him.
maybe Federer will win the most number of grand slams. maybe he will be known as the best ever for quite awhile. but maybe his era has ended. people will probably remember this era as the Federer-Nadal rivalry, two individuals who stood above the rest. not the one defining man that is Federer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)