Well, like Boss said, when he first read it he was pissed too. Then before I have a chance to let it out, I read all the negative and judgmental comments they're getting and I guess that made me even more mad. Of course I'd cooled down by the time I actually posted the reply tho'... As for whether they are telling the truth at all, well, what benefit would they get from lying? All the time and effort in the blog, explaining the whole ordeal in detail, just to tell their story and possibly get people to sign a petition for stricter regulations concerning the employment of security personnel. They're not asking for financial or legal aid, not seeking revenge by urging people to boycott Zouk, maybe the most they're hoping for is a little sympathy. Is that wrong? Like Chai said, it doesn't relate to me in any way. If that's the general mentality, why would they bother setting up the blog in the first place? Why is it so important they justify themselves and not appear the "bad guys", possibly starting the whole thing by making out and getting drunk in the first place or whatever? Does it matter what other people think? Are they some political figures having their credibility called into question that they need to set up this blog to tell their version of the story so their image doesn't go down in the eyes of the public? Do any of us even know who they are in the first place that we should even care what really happened to them or not? All they're doing is telling their story so we know that these things may happen and know not to take our safety for granted, even from people in positions of authority who are supposedly there to protect us. Does that sound like the actions of a malicious person who wants revenge for the pain and humiliation they've had to endure? As for whether it relates to me in any way, well, if I were a clubber, I'd be glad to know the story so I can look out for myself, and even if I weren't, high chances are that I know someone who is [loved ones/relatives/friends] and I can warn them beforehand. For that, I'm thankful to them for telling their story. It's just another eye-opener of what our society has become like. We're not safe from people who are there to protect us [the case of the 22 innocents in the drug bust comes to mind - incidentally, how is it that no one questioned the credibility of that story? ] We're not even safe from being judged on the Internet for coming forward and telling our story. As dutiful netizens, having doubts and voicing them is fine, but there are those who call names, imply that they deserve what was coming to them, and ask them to leave the country because she obviously thinks a Malaysian isn't good enough for her so she had to choose a foreigner. I mean, WTF?? Nothing better to say, don't say anything-lah... Then again, those are just a few isolated responses, not the general ones [I should hope]. I do understand the other views you guys have and respect them, especially that we should hear both sides of the story first before making any judgments. Unfortunately, we're already doing that whether we hear both sides of the story or not. My judgments were from the assumption that they were telling the truth, others' are based on the assumption they may be lying. Judgments nonetheless. Btw, I'm writing this with a calm mind, so don't have to tell me to relax or chill out anymore, okay? This isn't me getting worked-up here... Oh yeah, and do check out the latest entry on their site. Bear in mind it's true that if they're merely making up there side of the story, they're gonna be in a whole lot of trouble. Personally, I hope they're not. You want the truth? Time will tell.
Hehe.. What's the benefit of lying? That's a hard question to answer. I personally know of a pathological liar. He was a schoolmate and is currently a doctor. Intelligent, from a family of repute but never ceases to lie, even about the most innocuous thing. Why does one lie? I can't say really. I guess it depends on the person. Again, Ju-Lee MAY be telling the truth as she knew it. In her heart, she may even believe she has told nothing but the truth. But is that the actual truth? Or did she consciously or subconsciously embellish it? So, the reason why someone would lie about something as awful as that.. or why someone would bother creating a blog if he/she wasn't telling the truth has virtually NOTHING to do with the issue. Creating this blog publicly doesn't make her statement any more truthful. Zouk has similarly created a public statement in the newspapers. Who would be more believable in this sense? Humankind has the sorry habit of believing the worst in their own kind. If given two different stories about a person's character, we would more likely believe one telling scandalous stories about the person, rather than stories of praise. It's really a reflection of how we feel about ourselves. If we don't believe we have that good a character, we refuse to believe that others can be better than us. Think about it. Don't you think that's human nature? Frankly speaking, their petition may not be about Zouk but the ENTIRE blog is about smearing Zouk's name. Not that I actually care about Zouk since I only went there once and even that was at Intel's invitation. But the fact of the matter was if this issue was ENTIRELY about bad bouncers.. they would not have mentioned Zouk at all. In addition, practically everyone who supported them immediately said they would boycott Zouk. IMHO, that's jumping the gun. Again, I couldn't care less if Zouk closed down. But this is, frankly speaking, mindless HERD mentality. No one even bothered to ask the other party, hey, what's YOUR side of the story? They instantly assumed the other party was wrong. Try this - create a blog stating that an Indian gang beat you up because you, a Chinese kid, was trying to court an Indian girl. Claim in your blog that they told you pure Indian blood should not be sullied by a Chinese pig. Throw in some racial slurs. Everyone loves a scandalous story like that. Next thing you know - the blog is as famous as Ju-Lee's blog with tons of people condemning the Indians. Heck, if you throw in a sob story of how you, a sickly kid with haemolytic anaemia, had to fight off 5 burly Indians shouting Tamil obscenities at you before they stomped and broke your leg, you may even see Chinese boys going on a riot and bashing up innocent Indians. The point of this story is.. well, on the Internet, any Tom, Dick or Harry can concoct any story they like. Taking time to create a blog or any story doesn't make it any more truthful than the latest gossip you heard from your friend, who heard from his friend's friend's friend. Humans are very easily moved by words. As Hitler once said, the bigger the lie, the easier to fool the people. As you have seen, no matter how questions are raised about the validity of the various claims she has made, her supporters remained unfazed. They will support her even if the Supreme Court decides that she was lying all the time. Vice versa for those who disbelieve her. IMHO, even she doesn't really know the truth anymore. She has hammered her side of the story into her psyche, forever and ever. The ONLY impartial witness would be a video recording of the entire event. That is something that can never be fooled by human emotion or words.
Gosh Boss, I had no idea you felt that way about yourself! Don't worry, we all still think you're a great guy! Just kiddin' yah? This I have a little trouble with. True, the creation of the blog has no effect on the validity of her statement. It won't even have any effect on the court's decision if the case were taken to court [which they imply it will be]. Unless, of course, they were lying. Then the effect of creating false statements, defamatory statements about an establishment like Zouk would definitely backfire on them, agreed? So this is a case of berani kerana benar [daring to speak out because one is in the right]. One exception is that they are wrong, didn't think it through, and made this stupid mistake. I find it hard to believe they could goof as badly as this though. Then again I'm also judging from their apparent level of intelligence and giving them the benefit of the doubt. Another exception, like you said, is that they could be pathological liars? It's a possibility. As for the analogy of creating a blog with false claims, it might go as decribed and be similar to what they have done, except for one subtle difference. I can hide behind the anonymity of the Internet, but the identities of Ju-Lee and James are already known to the police, Zouk staff, and whoever else concerned/involved. If they are lying, this'll back-fire on them BIG-TIME. Isn't this a case of being judgmental again? How can you say she doesn't really even know the truth when you don't even know for sure whether she's telling the truth or not? I.e., if she's not telling the truth, then okay, she's actually believing a lie, but if she is telling the truth then aren't you being unfair by saying that? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Not just on the bouncers' side, but on their side as well? As I mentioned in my previous post, I really hope they're telling the truth, because if they're not they're guilty of defamation, libel, perjury, and what-have-you. Kinda seems like a big risk to take, don't you think?
LOL! I believe that's true of most people. Again, the concept that writing a public blog equates daring to tell the truth (because of the risk of lawsuits) is logically false. Writing a blog has NOTHING to do with the truth. Why? Because again... she's telling what she PERCEIVES to be the truth. If we give her a lie detector test, she may even pass it. But is she telling the truth as it happened? In actual fact, the very most credit we can give her is for telling her side of the story. How true it is, is another story altogether. Like I said, she very probably thinks she's telling the truth. In her heart, she probably believes so. But is that REALLY the absolute truth? Likewise, Zouk bouncers and manager will have their perceived version of the truth. It's really their words against hers. In such a situation, who would you believe? David or Goliath? Incidentally, as the example of my ex-classmate above shows, intelligence has NOTHING to do with the person's ethics, morals or even character. Therefore, I find little humour in people looking down on others just because they don't speak a particular language or come from what they perceive to be a low-class country. Not knowing a language or coming from a third-world country does not reduce your IQ level. But that's just me. All I'm saying is her intelligence, as perceived or assumed from the way she wrote the blog, really tells us nothing about her character. Again, she may well be a really truthful person, a real law-abiding citizen. But all she can tell us now is her perceived truth. Did things really transpire as how she explained it? I really don't know. I wasn't there. Should I trust her merely based on her words? Frankly, no. Why? Because I've only seen her side of the story but no evidence, no collaborating witnesses. Her friend? Well, as I understand the story, she only appeared on the scene AFTER they were kicked out of Zouk. Did she witness what transpired in the washroom? I certainly think not. As far as the law is concerned, she is as useless a witness as the rest of us. Judgemental? Hardly. I didn't even say I knew whether she was telling the truth or a lie. In fact, all I've been saying along is NO ONE here can be certain they know the truth. In fact, no one here has a RIGHT to say they know the truth. Hardly judgemental, right? In fact, unlike many people on her blog, I have not condemned her story as a blatant lie, not have I condemned Zouk's story as a cover-up. But many people sure made judgement right on the spot! Instant judges, eh? All I said was her perceived truth would now be hammered in her psyche, forever and ever. The same goes for the others involved - the bouncers and the manager. Their minds will now remember only their version of the story. If you give them all a lie detector test, you MAY end up with everyone telling the truth but their stories don't match. Again, as I've said previously, the ONLY way we can ever find out the REAL truth would be if a closed circuit video camera recorded the entire incident. Evidence don't lie. People do. Perjury is not only a big risk, it's a crime. Again, she may think she's telling the truth. In which case, she certainly won't be afraid of being charged with perjury. But when you look at the other side of the court, those bouncers and their manager will certainly be convicted with perjury if they tell lies. Isn't that the same risk as well? Perhaps I should just end my post with a short explanation of what I am personally trying to do here. I'm not here to say that Ju-Lee is a big fat liar. Neither am I here to say Zouk bouncers are big fat bullies. All I'm here to say is that NONE of us have the knowledge or the right to make those judgements. Want to speculate? Fine? Discuss the finer details? Why not? But get indignant over what we cannot verify as the truth? Why do that?
So, in the end, it's just discussion. Leave the judgement to the court and the lawyers... But then, in the end, the liar MAY be free and the innocent one charged as guilty. So, we'll have to leave it to God to do the rest.
Totally agree!! But feel free to continue the discussion. As long as we leave the knives and snarls in this thread, there's no reason why we can't debate both sides of the story.
Just to start the ball rolling, do you all believe her reason / excuse about not posting pictures of herself or her fiance? Would YOU have posted the actual pictures if you were in their shoes? Also, I wonder why James never once spoke up in the blog, or given his side of the story.
Well... James must be lying in bed now seeing what those guys did to him, 4 guys kicking him. If me, I also rather lie on the bed. LOL! Of coz won't post my pics... like my sister said and I agree totally, if you were to post the pics and we saw them on the street, we will come over and ask them about it, etc. Hey... some people might just hire someone to beat them up all over again. Rather not take the risk and settle everything in court.
Hmm.. You could be right. But what about pictures of the injuries? You can actually edit out their faces and show the other injuries, right? Or even mask their eyes and maybe noses to prevent identification, and yet allow us to see the extent of their injuries?
Hmm.. Looks like nothing much has changed. The same story is being repeated ad nauseum, plus some off-topic posts on terrorism and Malaysians having sex outside of the bedroom.
