Reply to comments...

Although you can't officially call this a post (and i won't call it one either)... I'll have to do it anyway, cause i was a bit shocked by the fact that lq had actually worked on getting his arguement our on the case of the charity show. (Check the comments section of the previous post)

Firstly, to reply to lq first comment:
This first comment sort of reminded me of a post which i made fun of this group of companies before. You might want to check out the post on the good old tsunami, which you should be able to see on the list.
In case people get too lazy, here is the exact quote:
" I think we have heard several times that some companies are donating something to the disaster area by buying something from them. Seems to be an unfortunate incident to allow people to do charity and buy more things for them under the pretext that they are helping the people who are in needs. But as we all already know, charity should be done of one's free will. Why must the companies ask other people to buy things so that they would donate to the people who needs this things urgently..."

"As far as I can see, a lot of companies and even people are using this opportunity as a chance to make money...How wonderful, cashing in on someone's else misfortunes..."

That alone should sum up my point against lq argument. That the companies should just directly donate to the organisation involved.

On the 3rd point that lq made:
So you have yet to answer the question. Why is there a need for our local actors to perform such stunts. Why can't they sing or dance and get people to donate. You know why? Because our local actors are bad, as in they are lousy. Look at our television programmes, other than CNA, all stays local, none made it to the international. What does it prove, our actors are bad. So what can i say?

Sorry mediacorp, but i think you guys can't make it. Look at CCTV, Phoenix ... Cartoon Network, Nick, why can't you do it?

Discmon