Sunday Times made me go Rofl.

I know, I know, I should be studying...

But hey, I am constantly being amused by Sunday Times.

1st of all, there's this article at the back pages which talked about how people used terms like "LoL" and "GG, you're screwed." in their daily face to face conversations, instead of keeping them online or in their cellphones. To be honest, I won't say I'm not guilty as well, since I do use those terms in conversations at times.

However, what interested me was how the term "Cya" could be defined as a "short form". How many ways are there to pronouncing that term? C-Y-A? C'mon, it sounds alike with See-ya, which is why the term "Cya" was morphed and coined. The writer obviously seemed to have forgotten that there IS a difference between writing and speaking. This is almost like saying "bai-bai", which is a "cute" form of "bye-bye (sucker....XD)" in real life. You can't "short-form" that term, unless you say "bb" to your friends, which, frankly, sounds retarded.

Another thing that the paper brought up was that people verbalise expressions, just as they might have had in online conversations. "*rolls eyes*", when said, again, sounds retarded. Bloody hell, we can see you are rolling your eyes, since when talking to someone, you should be looking straight into his/her eyes, instead of staring elsewhere. I do not see a need to actually verbalise that expression, unless of course, you are recounting it in a third person form (I rolled my eyes at that time). Imagine someone saying "sweat drop" after you've said a cold joke.

Which is colder? The cold joke, or the person who said "I sweat dropped"?

You decide.

A few pages earlier (page 29), there's this article by some one from New York Times, talking about how irked she was by the short-forms the internet users use. She isn't the only one. I don't mind short forms, but I prefer not to use them. It simply makes what I type much easier to read by the other party.

Or perhaps, it's just my preference. LoL.

A little short form is fine, but too much, it makes your message look like some kind of codebook that's used in world war two.

At least it isn't alternate caps. If there's one thing I seriously hate, it's alternate caps.

It's an eyesore. Nuff said.

And then, of course, other then these amusing articles that's on the back pages of Sunday Times, there's this rather annoying story at the front-mid pages of the paper.

I'm talking about the self-proclaimed Singapore most famous pink blogger.

To those who have no idea what it's about, the blogger wrote something about how abled body people should use toilets that is designed for the disabled.

While I do not wish to comment on this rather ridiculous issue, I am surprised that this piece of "news" was placed in front of other world stories such as the French Riots, and the anti-bush demostrations in Argentina. Sure, at the back pages, I don't think I'll mind.

But the front pages?

Since when did news about "bloggers" become more important than other world news? Even the Senior Minister's visit to Japan has been relegated to the back. Is there so little news to report, such that what happened to a blog is being shown on the front pages? Is reporting how others responded to a blogger's views more important than other world news?

This is sad. Truely sad. And coming from a state newspaper as well. From some tabloid, it would be a little understandable.

But The Sunday Times isn't a tabloid. It should be reporting news, not what happened to a blog. Hell, even the white house scandal isn't even half mentioned in the news. Sure, it's supposed to be an "update". However, do we actually even need updates on such issues, which is ridiculous to even talk about, to begin with?

*shakes head*. Why must you people continue to destroy my faith in humanity....?