I have not seen a lot of things in my life. I am only nearly 17.
Today, I have seen some things.
I have seen Wong Yew Leong dance around in an Elvis suit and orange feather boa.
I have seen Mr Seet dress in pink plus-sized women's clothes complete with balloon boobs.
I have seen Harris and Ixer dress up as that strange fat guy who only ever wears blue shirts.
I have seen the PE Department do some pretty lame shit.
I have seen Mr Ken do a Bollywoodish dance back in Dunman.
These are not things I thought I wanted to see before I die, but there was no harm in doing so. Mostly.

I'm still quite stunned. Try again next week.

It was great to see everyone again, and all the teachers, who seemed to have changed so much. I think they would not like the idea of not writing in paragraphs, unless I was writing a poem, so this is an attempt at a paragraph, because I am not writing a poem. When I do, I will not publish it on this blog, because it is embarrassing to reveal your inner thoughts and I am not that good anyway. They never turn out the way I want them to. Rest assured, I will not put in stupid metaphors like liquid diamonds. That takes the cake.

When school reopens, there will be a mad rush of lessons and revision. However, I will not be able to look wong yew leong in the face on thursday. I don't think I will be able to for a long time to come.

Today I read an article about the power of blogging. How blogging can usurp tyrants, and expose corruption, for example in John Leiberman, the Democrat primary. How because there is free speech in the first world, people take it for granted and write vapid, empty, self centred posts. How people elsewhere blog more carefully because every word counts. Look, this is rubbish. First, vapid posts happen everywhere. Second, yes, free speech is taken for granted, but it doesn't mean that bimbotic posts should be banned. They are PART of free speech. Not everyone wants to overthrow the government, not everyone's life revolves around just that.

The author has a very narrow view of what blogs really are for. They are a platform for opinions, not necessarily about politics. They are places where you can catch up with friend's lives, and they are places where you can be emo. Or, they are avenues for shameless self promotion. To say that people should only have posts that comment on important, world-changing issues is just condescending. So, I will waste this post away with little lines of nonsense inspired by Russell Peter's "Your Marder so Fat!"

Your marder so fat, that when she get into the lift, she press all the buttons.

Your marder so fat, that when she get into the car, car honk vey loud.

Your marder so fat, that when she watch movie, she block herself.

Your marder so fat, when she want string bikini, they string pail.

Your marder so fat, when she fly to san francisco, she buy plane.

Your marder so fat, she must do her laundry in the sea.

Your marder so fat, that when she play piano, she only make one sound.

I have just finished reading one chapter on the Cold War, and it has been enough to delude me into believing that I've done anywhere near enough. Promos are in 4 weeks. I HAVE to start properly now, but there are other more urgent things (yeah right) that require my undivided attention. For example, my mother just flew off to San Francisco for some vendor thing. She's left me saddled with moer to do around the house than usual, and my lazy ass brother is not helping. My only consolation is that she will buy nice stuff from the land of opportunity, elvis, disneyland and nuclear bombs.

And debate alumni are going to be flooding the function room soon, but I haven't bought any drinks or paper plates or anything. Will go later. Soon. When I can drag myself away from screensucking activities. Screensucking. I like that word. It almost sounds as if you're doing something cool or lewd in front of your computer, when it actually means that you're stoning. Searsucker. It's a kind of cloth that's wrinkly. Toesucker. What babies are.

FAYE IS GONE!!!

This is a rather bad photo, with bad memories attached to it. The first of 4 finals that I would lose.

Still..I suppose it was worth it to even come that far. I really miss Dunman.

This has been niggling at me for awhile. There is too much emphasis on writing impressively rather than writing clearly. People are blown away by dead metaphors, long words, and stuffy tone, while forgetting the purpose of the written word in the first place. I was reading a writing guide by The Economist (and they would do well to follow their own advice), and decided that the education system has instilled bombasticism over elegance.

An example: Use short words, like about, instead of approximately. These shorter words are natives of the English language, with Anglo-Saxon origin, rather than longer, Latin or German based vocabulary. The word vocabulary itself comes from the French "vocabulaire", which in turn comes from the Medieval Latin "vocabularium". Although English is a bastard language, it has evolved into a separate linguistic entity, and it has words for most things. Therefore there is no excuse to use "per annum" when one can use "per year" or "beyond one's authority", not "ultra vires".

I recognise that style is a crucial part of writing, and sometimes tone or individuality call for sesquipedalians, but they should be exceptions rather than the norm. Simple words don't make you sound like a moron. They are powerful. For instance "To be or not to be, that is the question." , "We are such stuff as dreams are made of", or in a modern context "You cocky little shit." Besides, writing is always more accessible when it reads like normal, grammatical speech.

I change my mind. I've just read the whole article, and it has excluded about half my vocabulary. Not everyone can write like Economist journalists, and even they make mistakes. So as long as I don't have to strain to understand it, and it doesn't make me cringe, it's fine with me.

Go here, if you can be bothered. http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=673913