Ouch! (Ad hominem ad infinitum)

It started from here, in Nat's blog: "NST/Gov’t takes low blow at Tony Pua" where he opined on an NST article which basically says that Tony's ability to be an economic adviser is dubious because his previous company wasn't really well-run. And that the piece from NST quoted Jed Yoong's blog on the issue.

Tony went to Oxford for PPE; it would be ridiculously fun to mock his ability in economics. But that would be provincial. So I thought I would give a more objective comment on this matter on both Nat's and Jed's blogs:

Hi Jed,

Having been trained in Cambridge, and currently going through the sad post-graduate life in Cambridge still as an economics student, I find it odd to be standing on the side of Tony Pua (an Oxonian..) on this matter.

Your ‘critical comment’ on Tony is ad hominem in nature, akin to saying that a fat Chef can never cook healthy food, or a deaf Musician can never play good music (ehem, Eve Glennie).

To judge Tony’s credibility as an Economic Adviser, I find it best to go through his work as one, ie, read through his Budget (Nat provided a link) and compare it with the most obvious alternative, the real Budget. Tell me if you could find it severely misguided, and terribly lacking in economics insight relative to the actual Budget.

Tell me if you could … because I can’t.

And yes, Merry Christmas.

Elanor

Nat approved my comment, Jed didn't. And on Jed's blog today, there is this entry:

NOTICE
Filed under: macam2ada, stoopid

Commentators who repeat arguments that have been addressed will be ignored. Especially those from “protected spoilt brats” who have never worked in their lives and are caught in their student life bubbles. You are not adding any value to this adult forum.

If you can’t assimilate and digest information to come up with an intelligent, mature response, your comment will be deleted.

Life is too short.

Thanks.

Now, it would be extremely presumptuous to believe that this was directed to me. I am sure Jed received a lot of annoying comments on her blog due to this matter, and I can see how she could be irritated and hence the general 'notice'.

....
....

But let's say it is - purely for fun. How would I respond? Rationally, I shouldn't (note the title of this post). But that won't be fun. Let's see:


1) "protected spoilt brats" -

Okay, I can be a brat sometimes. I admit. The consequence of being the youngest in the family.


2) "never worked in their lives" -

Actually, I did. For three years, in economics research and policy-making related area. Unlike the rest of my friends, I eschewed jobs that would actually pay a decent wage to do something I believe in. Yes, I am that naïve... and stupid. Sigh.


3) "caught in their student life bubbles"

I am so naïve in fact, I decided to give myself more punishing by reading more economics back in Cambridge. My reason is so I could be better in what I do and contribute more when I go back home. Spending Christmas alone here, away from family and friends, mugging for an impending exams, makes me question my decision. Double sigh.


4) "adding any value to this adult forum"

It's like rain on my wedding day?


5) "intelligent, mature response"

It is because I used 'fat Chef', isn't it?


6) "Life is too short"

Triple sigh...


Elanor