Zer0, this post is solely for you. And to the rest of the 1obn pple, this is the last with regards to the whole issue.
Firstly, I’d like to remind you, Zer0, that you did not get your facts right. In fact probably even the rest of the guys in 1obn didn’t know about this but the waitresses/maids, Floyd, his father and his mother (I presume) know what I did.
I won’t deny that what we (the other guy and me) did was ‘cheeky’, but I find that ‘cheeky’ is a major misrepresentation of our actions. Rather, what we did was out of pure childish fun, and that we were doing loser-forfeits for playing Big-2. Hence, we were just being mischievious with no ill intention rather than being what you termed as ‘cheeky’. I clarified with the Ma’am first, that I wasn’t trying anything funny and assured her that I was not looking for any ‘hanky panky’, which was what she openly said in the cafe at that time I approached one of the waitresses/maids (name not disclosed for privacy). I politely asked for the girl’s name, and faked the rest (with the girl’s 100% acknowledgement) of the details I was supposed to ask for. I then thanked her and the Ma’am and proceeded back to the table promptly, that was it.
The next person to do so, albeit expectedly, did not use the same approach as I did and made a mistake. Ok, so he got rejected. But he seldom approached girls, and on top of that, it was a forfeit, so enough said there. Yes, the girl got a little upset, but portrayed professionalism in the fact that she just told him that “personal details cannot be given to customers”. So he came back and we continued playing, with our cards.
Now here’s the part where some, if not all, of the guys (who were present that night) don’t know about. When we were paying the bill, and after the guys walked back, I stayed behind to talk to the Ma’am. I clarified and made sure that none of the girls were emotionally affected by the things we had done that night. And I apologised to each of the maids, the father and the Ma’am herself. Several times. When I went back to the table, Nic joked that I was “having some fun with the girls by myself” but I just shrugged it off and promptly told the rest that we should get moving (and left soon after while a few others stayed behind). And that was basically how I wrapped it up for that night.
Now, if you insist on turning a blind eye to my post, which is factually true, I can set up a time and date to meet you to go down to the Cosafe just to confirm the validity of my statements. On top of that, I’d like to remind you that our subsequent visits to the Cosafe earned us some minor privileges for being mischievious (not ‘cheeky boys’, mind you), and also being the gentlemen for apologising for our actions. If we really were ‘cheeky boys’ then I think we wouldn’t be able to enjoy our subsequent visits to the Cosafe, or even get to patronise the cafe anymore, right?
I hope that with this post, all the misunderstandings are cleared. The rest of you, just concentrate on the EoY event please.
Thank you.
3 Cheers for KJ! Most tactful approach ever.
Soukai>
I appreciate your effort to set the records straight. And going through your account, my entry does not misrepresent the events that happened.
According to your statements:
“I won’t deny that what we (the other guy and me) did was cheeky”
Not one, but two persons, did go up to the maid to ask for “personal details”, and that did make the maid “little upset”.
In my entry, I maintained that what you guys did was cheeky and nothing more. And my comment is that trying to obtain “personal details” of the maids is prejudicial to good conduct at maid cafes.
Even though your groups’ intention may not be malicious, and even if the culprits have made apologies to the harassed party, that does not deny the fact that your group has tried to obtain “personal details” of the mei-mei working at Cosafe.
LOL Zero, I’ve been a bystander all this while but now I sort of think you’re missing the point.
I still maintain that what my friend and I did was purely mischievious and without ill intent. You fail to see that I quoted your words to prove otherwise what you portrayed as the ‘truth’.
This is clearly a refusal to revise your statements based on new evidence (and existing ones that you’ve chosen to turn a blind eye to) but I don’t intend to leave it at that without your complete understanding.
Yes, we did ask for the so-called personal details, which only pertained to the names of the maids. I agree that it is prejudice to good conduct to ask such things of the waitresses, hence my explanation that I clarified with the elder Lady who is presumably the mother of one of the maids there or perhaps Floyd himself. Even so, it is a minor prejudice, and not a major one as you portrayed.
Do you think that, without the consent of the Ma’am at the restaurant, we would press on to ask for personal details of the maids? If we were, that is your so-called (major) prejudice of good conduct, which is also tantamount to harrassment, which was also what we didn’t do.
Once again, if it really is harrassment, would we be enjoying the minor privileges from the Cosafe, or at the very least, be allowed to go back to the Cosafe on our subsequents outings to the same place?
And whether it’s harrassment or not, it’s for them to decide, not you.
And for the record, the 2 of us talked to 2 different girls, not the same one.
LianYL> Pardon me as I think I might be a little dense, but what exactly is the “point”?
The point is, they are trying to get you clear their misrepresentations on your site by telling you what really went on but you’re ignoring that fact and going for surface nitpicking. I could elaborate more but as a bystander that’s my neutral opinion of the current situation.
Correction to LianYL, you’re going for word nitpicking.
If you really want to nitpick, I could continue nitpicking from where I left off on your blog.
Again, I urge you to settle this amicably with us by contacting us via MSN, so we can settle this without any mudslinging.
Alternatively, we could all go down and meet you at cosafe, and clear things up once and for all.
Surely amending a few words/phrases/sentences is not that difficult to do? Especially if you can spend time reading our blog for new posts and comments?
My take on the two issues:
(1) The linking of blogs
My stand: I am not removing the links. You are responsible for what you publish on the Internet.
(2) The misrepresentation of facts
My stand: Fact: Boys tried to ask waitresses at Cosafé for personal details. Opinion: That’s a cheeky act.
I repeat my stand, because I believe you’re skirting the issue here. I’m re-posting whatever i posted on your comment log.
A few days ago, I noticed someone called zer0 posting a comment on a post made by me on my blog, and by marc on 1obn’s blog. I quote what he said: ” ‘were to ask the maids their particulars’ - that’s bad otaku etiquette.” In both instances where he posted this comment, I made official replies clarifying the original posts. Let me quote the clarifications I made:
a. On my own blog : “Seriously speaking, posting on 1Obn is one thing, posting on my blog, despite me clearly stating that my ignorant friend asked it, he’s totally ignorant mind you, which made it so funny in the first place. The other friend who wasn’t ignorant only asked for the name. Please read, and understand the situation first before shooting your load off next time.” Notice I had not condoned the actions of the friend who actually asked for all the personal details of the waitresses, but instead labelled him as ignorant.
b. On the 1Obn blog, I made a post to clarify the post once more on 24 Dec 06: “In any case, I need to make an official reply to someone called zer0. I don’t know how you found our web page, and I don’t know if you’re going to visit this page again, but your comments that it was ‘bad etiquette’ seems to be misplaced. In fact, that comment alluded to an inside joke, and I have to clarify that we 1Obn have never directly asked for personal details apart from name, not least officially. Granted, we might have been playing forfeits, and granted, one of the earliest forfeits was to get the personal details of any meidos, but the person who did it protected the integrity of the meido by only asking her name, and falsely filling up all the other details, just to complete the forfeit. I hope this clarifies.’ ”
If the above clarifications are not sufficient enough to persuade anyone that we did not intend to ask the personal details of the waitresses/meidos at the cafe, I don’t know what will be sufficient. In addition, zer0 evidently read my reply to him, as he had replied “My apologies then. I didn’t know you guys are one and the same ” at 11.31am on 24 Dec 06. proving that he was definitely aware of the clarifications made, minimally those made on my blog.
I quote zer0 once more: “As long as information is posted onto the public domain of the Internet, unsecured, it’s fair game. If information and content is meant to be private or limited to an exclusive audience, the appropriate medium should be used for dissemination i.e. restricted bulletin boards, password locked entries, e-mails. And also ensure that the information is inaccessible to search engines.” This in itself, plainly explains my decision to password lock the posts, to corroborate my stand that the two blogs are private, and not for public viewing. Doh.
I’d like to explain that I’m making such a fuss not because I’m otaku, or because I’m too free. I’m making a fuss to correct an errornous assumption/accusation/insinuation by zer0 that 1Obn members, or me, are stalkers/”cheeky little boys”. I’d like to point out the definition that a stalker, according to www.britannica.com is “to pursue quarry or prey stealthily; to walk stiffly or haughtily”, while all 4 times we were there, we did nothing of that sort to justify the “stalker” tag at all. In addition “cheeky”, according to www.britannica.com once again, is “having or showing cheek”, which begs the question, what is the appropriate definition of cheek here? Once again, according to www.britannica.com, “cheek” refers to “insolent boldness and self-assurance”, of which none of the members of 1Obn displayed. In fact, as regular patrons to the cafe, we have assisted them in re-arranging the tables and helping them when needed, and have not unnecessarily bothered the meidos/waitresses. Lasty, the “little boys” in the “cheeky little boys” phrase, we’re all undergraduates here, and while we may seem youthful compared to zer0’s fatherly age, I’m sure we’re not “little kids”, mentally, physically or otherwise.
I’d like to comment further on the comments made in response to my comment here. As mentioned by zer0, I quote “Though it’s common for customers to hit on waitresses/barmaids at any f&b outlets”. Once again, a very serious allegation. I’ll refer you to the definition of “hit on” by www.britannica.com, to hit on is “to make especially sexual overtures to”. At no point of time did we do anything remotely near that. Its very easy, just ask any waitress/meido at the cafe who knows me/1Obn members, and the truth is revealed. In addition, I am very sure that in the post itself, we had explicitly made it clear that we were well aware of the rules of the cafe, and had consciously made efforts not to flout the rules, namely, photgraphing of the meidos without permission, and getting their personal details.
I take issue also with this comment, and quote zer0 once more: “Even if they’re deluded to think they are knights errant bestowed with the duty of protecting the maids’ honour and dignity, I don’t think they have the authority to act on the behalf of restaurant and make demands. Watching too much anime and spending long hours on games can distort the perception of reality, inducing the individual to make inaccurate assessments of one’s self.” I am quite sure that I have not spoken on behalf of the cafe at all, and sincerely apologise on behalf of 1Obn if any of my members have done so. Still, posting the availability of a 20% discount “for those still in school” (quoted once more), when there is no official confirmation from the cafe is very misleading. Granted, it might only be a conjecture, but such conjectures should be done with care.
What I’m asking is very simple: I’ve twice clarified officially the events which transpired (leading to the misunderstanding), and am asking zer0 to retract/edit the inaccurate factual representation of 1Obn and my own blog. Is it that difficult to do so?
@xpyre You hit the nail on the head. This is the reason why I am demanding the statements be retracted, because I have clarified the points, but despite the clarification, zer0 goes on to post the wrong facts and accusations against 1Obn, and myself. So having said that, do you still think that my comments here are unwarranted? The least zer0 could have done would be to clarify the situation until he gets the whole picture.
@Ashe I understand that “privacy” is not a privilege of the internet, and as such have since password-locked all my posts, or at least, the more recent ones. It is an inadequecy of the internet that definite has to be looked into. But’s that’s not the main thrust of the argument, or at least, my argument. I’m not questioning the linking to my blog/1Obn’s blog, I’m questioning the manner in which my blog/1Obn’s blog was linked, especially with all the false tags being labelled on us, as seen above.
In any case, I reiterate my stand that the statements made in the blog pertaining to 1Obn and my blog are errornous, and demand zer0 to edit/retract it. A simple adjustment/deletion of a few words/phrases/sentences would merely take a few minutes.
zer0, I do hope common sense prevails, and I do not have to continue this debate. My email address is there, you can contact me via MSN anytime to settle the issue amicably.
Zer0, if you want to think of it as cheeky, it’s fine by me. But it is in NO way harrassment to the parties in question. Being cheeky is one thing, harrassing the girls is another thing.
And for the record, AGAIN, I never went to the cosafe again after the first night because I personally feel that it is a waste of money and time. So please tell me who’s stalking who again?
1) The inability to accept new evidence (and turning a blind eye to existing ones) and to revise your opinion: Fact. I quote:”Even if they’re deluded to think they are knights errant bestowed with the duty of protecting the maids’ honour and dignity,” and “Watching too much anime and spending long hours on games can distort the perception of reality, inducing the individual to make inaccurate assessments of one’s self.” You, Zer0, are trying to play the knight now, but you are deluding yourself to think that you have any form of justice in you plainly because of your malignant statements on top of the ‘cheeky boys’ statement. As for the second quote you can take it back, it works on you as well, just that you force your inaccurate assessments on to others to make yourself look like a hero.
But, if you still want to insist on playing the hero, go ahead. That’s the reason I posted this, and the readers shall understand for themselves, because I see no point in explaining to you anymore.
Nevermind Zer0, merry christmas.
OMG it’s over? Gay buttsex.
u wish it not to be?
Which moron would still be living in their parent’s house at the age of 35? I pity you, i really do…
now who is this “Im35andImAllAlone!”?
Bill Clinton.
The Reality is sad isn’t it? Living in your fantasy? Pity pity…
Why is asking for a girl’s personal contact cheeky? no wonder you’re still single! REALITY CHECK!!!
Not really, he has hordes of girlfriends. Like LianYL.
Just that they all stone in the Cabinet.
I wouldn’t mind living in my parents’ place at 35. Or my parent’s place. Few people appreciate what they have until they lose it.
So uncalled for. Chill la. They’re just “maids”. Something else in your life seeks more of your attention… Aiyah.. whats there to clarify?
The men don’t get it. Sheesh
You’re female? I see you gave yourself a nice name.
-.- Disturb only sia you 2.