Although the doctor said there was "nothing in my brain" (yesterday's blog entry), it was in the context of ruling out any brain lesion. That was a first impression, which was confirmed in his MRI report today (Sept 25). He did advise me, however, that there were some small signs of blood vessel narrowing and arterial hardening. For now, the suggestion was that I pursue a more relaxed lifestyle (I call that smelling more roses) together with a "healthy" diet and to exercise more (get moving more).
I shall take that to heart.
And, to motivate myself to get moving around more often, I will spent very much less time critiquing the newspapers (which can take quite some time). So, the stuff I spotted today will be the last on a regular basis.
Incidentally, the scan I went through yesterday included the use of contrast material to produce pictures of major blood vessels in the brain. I found this link below helpful:
http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=angiomr
___________________________________________
No, this is not the way to write up this story!
I believe this is what happened during the debriefing of the reporter: She must have said the accused person, at the time of pleading guilty, did not appear to be remorseful and seemed even "chirpy". To reinforce that point, the accused was quoted verbatim thus: "Ya, I admit to the charge. Oh, and I also seek leniency." The editors must have liked this angle to the story.
No, this story should have been written as dispassionately as possible, eschewing the unwarranted use of "colour". We do not know what really went on in the mind of the accused -- someone who had killed her own son (and I daresay whom she loved) -- during those crucial moments in the dock before a judge. Yes, it is a journalistic practice to, say, describe an accused person's demeanour and even details like the kind of attire worn. But journalists must make judgement calls too; this is one occasion when trying to make the story more vivid is not right.
_______________________________________________
The HDB replies... and is silent on the $82,000 question!
I had, on Tuesday, put this up:
The HDB's reply was published today (ST Forum, Sept 25):
So one must assume that the $82,000 figure is not challenged. It is a lot of money spent per carpark space (even if as a last resort)! Will we be expecting an ST editorial on this?
______________________________________
One gram or even 10 grams of gold do not make for "gold ingots"!
(Hello, these are gold wafers)
_______________________________________________
Finally...
That ugly widow line again!
 |
| ST, Sept 24 |
No comments:
Post a Comment