A Few Thoughts About Blogging



Recently, there have been a lot of disturbance in the force that is the Mauritian blogging world. Instead of commenting on millions of articles about recent events and twittering about it haphazardly, I thought I would set my thoughts out in a number of bullet points:

1) A lot of skirmishes have resulted from bloggers not being able to take in criticism. As a blogger, and more importantly, as a person, I am always open to criticism, as long as it's genuine. The greatest sign of maturity is the ability to accept the harshest criticism. This is more applicable to more established bloggers because they are sometimes unwilling to accept that certain people could criticise them. You should always remember that once you accept the criticism and work on it, the person will never pester you (unless he or she is mentally deranged). But if you keep on denying something, then be prepared to be bombarded senseless. As a blogger, you experience a lot of public exposure, so you should be expected to deal with these kinds of challenges. I would like to grab this opportunity to mention my appreciation for the way Yashvin has maintained his cool and kept going with his blogging work, despite being subjected to a fair amount of criticism in the last month or so. We may not agree with him, but his intentions are noble and he does not mean harm or disrespect to anyone.

2) Opinions! Opinions are the drivers of the blogosphere. If people did not have opinions, there would be no blogosphere. But like all things man-made, opinions can often lead to conflict. Various bloggers express their opinions differently, various bloggers have very different opinions! The most important thing is to respect all opinions. But there are exceptions. How do you define an opinion which cannot be respected and which needs to be condemned? When is criticism a personal attack? The latter question can seem quite obvious, but then where does the blog start and the blogger's personal profile end? Is the blog a fair reflection of the blogger's persona? Finally, how do you condemn an opinion? How far can you go in terms of ripping into someone? These are questions which are still hard to answer for me. But I do know that if people are open-minded and mature, it becomes much easier to debate and discuss. Otherwise, it will inevitably get ugly. When it comes to Mauritians, I think you will all have to agree that we tend to get too sensitive at times. We have so many fiery characters around who can instantly combust at any time! It's entertaining, it's energetic, but it can also be very unhealthy for the camaraderie between bloggers.

3) Another hot topic to have 'graced' twitter conversations recently is anonymity. A vital characteristic of web interaction is faceless communication. No wonder the internet has led to a real revolution in terms of freedom of expression. Such is the value of freedom of expression that numerous bloggers adopt a pseudonym to protect their identity and hence benefit from the lack of retribution if they show extremist tendencies as defined by the society or the authorities. But when does anonymity amount to cowardice? Lately, the notorious Shayus caused ripples of discontent amongst Mauritian bloggers. I think we were right to resent Shayus because the blog was a blatant attempt at personal attacks on specific bloggers. She (I think it's been established that Shayus is a 'she') even noticed cracks appearing in the Mauritian blogosphere, which was absolute nonsense, since the mobilisation front against Shayus was the most united Mauritian bloggers had ever been! If she actually toned down the personal attacks and blogged with her real name so as to give more bite and credibility to the criticisms she was firing, she would have warranted a decent amount of respect. Of course, she had the right to be anonymous, but being anonymous so as to be an absolute bitch is very laughable in my book.

4) Finally something which has made me chuckle a few times in the past: blogging ethics. What are those? Ethics?? I thought blogging was just extended chatting, or informal journalism. There are no set ethics in the blogosphere. Obviously, I do not mean we are savages and lawless. But ethics is too strong a word to be associated with blogging, unless you are a very serious professional blogger, which most Mauritians are not. I do not actually know any professional Mauritian bloggers. So why do we keep on mentioning ethics? Why do we think bloggers need to fit a certain frame? Why can't everyone just abide by the basic rules of humanity? There are fundamental laws to observe when interacting with fellow human beings. That's all you need to follow! You can write whatever you want as long as you are not libelous. Journalists have ethics, politicians have ethics, professionals have ethics,...etc Bloggers who blog for fun do NOT need to have any defined ethical responsibilities. They just need to observe basic etiquette, something which you would abide by in everyday life, in actual life situations. Just like you wouldn't call someone you don't know personally names on the street, you would not do that on your blog or in your comments on other blogs. A blogger is still a person at the end of the day, so why the need to invent blogging ethics when all you need to do is behave yourself in the same way you would behave yourself in society? Bloggers are not the Illuminati or some other underground society. For me, when you start taking blogging too seriously, that's when you start quarelling, that's when you start being intolerant towards criticism, that's when you start seeing conspiracies everywhere and become paranoid, that's when some start behaving like primary school kids,...etc Let's just ditch this idea that blogging is everything and that we need some kind of structure to regulate it so that no-one is offended. Just blog with your heart. Just write down your thoughts. We all have a life after all, blogging is just one small part of our life, it's not everything! Just enjoy the thrill while you can and keep blogging as informally as you can. Bloggers are just normal people. There is no need for special rules and regulations. If you behave yourself like you would at home, then everyone will have a nice time blogging and there will be no stressful tussles.

These were my thoughts. Now for something to relax your nerves:


Delving Into My Psyche


A few days ago, I read with interest Wez's article where she went through an intense psychoanalytic test of her innermost desires and personality. OK, she did not actually do that, she did something called The Proust Questionnaire, which is meant to gauge one's personality. I thought it would be interesting to do it since I rarely write about myself on my blog. This is a long one, so, without further ado, here we go!

1. What is your idea of perfect happiness?
Cup of tea and stand-up comedy dvd. Or, the probability of realising my dreams not being nil.

2. What is your greatest fear?
Being at a standstill.

3. What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?
Laziness. Procrastination. Stubbornness. That's more than one...

4. What is the trait you most deplore in others?
Close-mindedness. Disrespectfulness. That's again more than one.

5. Which living person do you most admire?
My parents. I would be nothing without them. And I am not even exaggerating.

6. What is your greatest extravagance?
I think I have a very comfortable life and that is the greatest extravangance I could wish for.

7. What is your current state of mind?
Duh!

8. What do you consider the most overrated virtue?
Piety.

9. On what occasion do you lie?
When I don't want to get my parents worried about stuff.

10. What do you most dislike about your appearance?
My slowly receding hairline... I am letting it grow long for a last time...

11. Which living person do you most despise?
Piers Morgan.

12. What is the quality you most like in a man?
That's too private...

13. What is the quality you most like in a woman?
Simplicity, honesty...and boobs.

14. Which words or phrases do you most overuse?
Bloody hell!

15. What or who is the greatest love of your life?
Music.

16. When and where were you happiest?
1998, when I started secondary education in Mauritius. I had no worries AT ALL. I just went to school, played football all day and flirted with girls in a haphazard manner, without worrying about consequences and responsibilities.

17. Which talent would you most like to have?
I would love to be naturally funny.

18. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
I would grow myself wings like.

19. What do you consider your greatest achievement?
Graduating from university last year because I acquired decades of life experiences and maturity in those 3 years.

20. If you were to die and come back as a person or a thing, what would it be?
Gymneth Paltrow's teddy bear.

21. Where would you most like to live?
British or French countryside.

22. What is your most treasured possession?
My insanity.

23. What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery?
Acute hunger.

24. What is your favorite occupation?
Throwing stones at midgets.

25. What is your most marked characteristic?
My muscular physique. Hey you at the back, did you say 'you wish'?

26. What do you most value in your friends?
Sincerity.

27. Who are your favorite writers?
The Actuarial Education Company. That's right, the companies who produce my course notes. When not studying, it's V.S.Naipaul, Michael Crichton and classic authors like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde and Charles Dickens.

28. Who is your hero of fiction?
It's got to be the dark knight of Gotham City!

29. Which historical figure do you most identify with?
None, but I really admire Alexander The Great.

30. Who are your heroes in real life?
Eric Cartman, Stan Marsh, Kyle Broflovski and Kenny McCormick!

31. What are your favorite names?
Any name which carries a meaning, rather than names like Sweety and the ones you get in Mauritius where they take a popular
trisyllabic girl's name (like Natasha,...etc) and just play around with vowels and consonants to end up with ridiculous names.

32. What is it that you most dislike?
This questionnaire is getting depressing now... Damn, I have just seen the next questions... Okay, the thing I dislike the most is the act of willingly restricting someone else's opportunities in life.

33. What is your greatest regret?
Not learning to play a musical intrument when I had the chance to.

34. How would you like to die?
I would love to die in a way that is not sudden. I would not mind dying of very old age.

35. What is your motto?
Be the best you can be. Always. If you still fall short of your aims, then that's how it is meant to be, because you cannot be better than your best.

There you go. Apologies to those who got bored midway through (I don't blame you, I almost got bored myself!)! I look forward to other blogger doing the questionnaire too!

Yet Another Great Feat by Obama


Barack Obama adds yet another feather to his cap after being awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his "efforts to boost democracy and co-operation". Ever since he beat McCain to the presidency of the most powerful nation on Earth, Obama has become an international symbol of hope and change. But does he really deserve a Nobel Peace Prize award, barely 9 months into his presidential mandate?

News of Obama winning the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was met with shock and disbelief this morning. I almost choked on my tea as I read the headline on the BBC News website. Apparently, I was not the only one. The reaction to the news was even worse in the US, with most media entities questioning the wisdom of awarding him with the honour when he has hardly done anything in his first few months of presidency.

I do not think I can truly judge him for I am merely a muggle in front of Obama. But what I do think is ridiculous is that people have been jumping on the bandwagon of political correctness, just because he is the first black President of the USA. I am myself a huge admirer of Obama, but there is a limit to my fondness. He has achieved a herculean task by becoming president, but that does not mean he is an exception to the rule. And, in my opinion, he has definitely not done anything spectacular to merit the greatest formal accolade that humans can aspire to. Not yet atleast. He has indeed been a more willing advocate of international co-operation than his republican predecessor, but is he more deserving than anyone else?


According to Alfred Nobel's will, the prize should be given "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." The big favourite prior to the announcement of the Norwegian Nobel Committee was current Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai who has steered his country from the jaws of complete social and economic meltdown towards the gleaming light of hope. Other possible nominees (not definite since the list is only made public 50 years after the prize is awarded) who fulfilled the above criteria include the following:

  • Ingrid Betancourt, the Colombian-French activist who was freed after a lengthy abduction.
  • Nicolas Sarkozy, the charismatic French President for his work towards peace in the Middle East and his valuable contribution to the ending of the Russian-Georgian conflict.
  • Greg Mortenson, an American humanitarian known for the building of schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
  • Piedad Córdoba, a Colombian senator who negotiated the release of several hostages from the clutches of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.
  • Hu Jia, Chinese human rights activist known for his campaigns for civil rights, for the environment and for religious freedom in China. He has recently been jailed for 3 and half years.
  • Cluster Munition Coalition, a civil society movement campaigning against the use of cluster munitions.

Anyway, whatever the arguments for and against, this is an incredible achievement by Obama, which will put incredible pressure on him to deliver on the promise he has shown so far. To be fair to him, he is not to blame at all for this. His humble acknowledgement of the honour epitomises his amazing charm. He would probably have won this prize anyway in the future! It is a magnificent crown for a magnificent human being, but this early appraisal of his work can have detrimental effects in the US and is already providing fodder for his rivals. His biggest challenge now would be to fulfill the enormous expectations bestowed upon him by this Nobel Prize.

What do you make of this news?

The 'Other' Nobel Prizes


The Ig Nobel Prize Laureates for 2009 have been announced and they are as 'crazy' as they have always been. But don't tell that to the laureates!

The Ig Nobel Prizes are alternative Nobel prizes which have been handed out since 1991 by the scientific comedy magazine Annals of Improbable Research and are meant to reward 10 achievements which, in their own words, are meant to "first make people laugh, and then make them think". Previous winning works have included the following:

  • Discovering that fleas on dog jump higher than those on cats
  • Discovering that slime moulds can solve puzzles
  • Showing that rats sometimes cannot tell the difference between a person speaking Japanese backwards and a person speaking Dutch backwards.
  • Calculating the number of photographs you must take to practically ensure that nobody in a group photo will have their eyes closed
  • Studying ultrasonic velocity in cheddar cheese as affected by temperature.

As you can see, they are all very fascinating achievements! You could think that it's all about having a laugh at absolutely stupid research work, which is definitely true to some extent since the truly mental nature of some of the discoveries is very obvious. But advocates of the awards think that although the Ig Nobel prizes are a disguised dig at trivial research and sometimes very tongue-in-cheek by not rewarding actual research but stupid actions, history suggests that some of them could give way to amazing finds in the future. The warm nature of the awards is characterised by the fact that real Nobel laureates attend the ceremony (which is sponsored by a few Harvard University clubs and societies) and hand out the awards.

OK, let's have a look at the 2009 Ig Nobel Laureates by category:

Public Health: Three Americans for inventing a bra that can be quickly turned into a pair of gas masks: one for the woman (or fat man) and the other for anyone standing nearby.


Mathematics: Governor of Zimbabwe's Reserve Bank for printing notes ranging from one cent to one hundred trillion denominations to make everyday transactions easier in the ravaged Zimbabwean economy.

Veterinary Medecine: Two Newcastle University staff for showing that cows which are named give more milk than nameless ones.

Literature: The Irish Police for writing over 50 traffic tickets to the most frequent driving offender in Ireland, Prawo Jazdy (whose name means "Driving Licence" in Polish)

Biology: Three Japanese university lecturers for showing that kitchen rubbish can be reduced by more than 90% in mass by using bacteria extracted from the excrements of giant pandas.

Chemistry: Three Mexicans scientists for creating diamonds from tequila.

Peace: Five Swiss university academics for determining whether it is better to be smashed over the head with a full bottle of beer or with an empty bottle.

Medecine: An American for his investigation on a possible cause of arthritis of the fingers, by regularly cracking the knuckles of his left hand but not his right hand every day for more than 60 years.

Physics: Three American university academics for analysing why pregnant women do not tip over.

Economics: The directors, executives, and auditors of four Icelandic banks for showing that tiny banks can be rapidly transformed into huge banks, and vice versa (and for demonstrating that similar things can be done to an entire national economy).


Well done everyone!!

So which one do you think is your favourite winning discovery?