Probably the worst BBQ seafood in my life.....

[vince123123]

I stopped discussing on substantive aspects of those points since you didnt wish to engage. A discussion is a two way process, there's no point you telling me to go ahead when you are not interested in a discussion.

yes, i've already told you to go ahead do your heart out, i'm sure you'll enjoy it

 

[Deadpoet]

say someone fakes himself as a HDB officer wanting to check your flat, or someone fakes himself as a home deco magazine reporter wanting to enter your house to take pictures, what do you think?

faking as a magazine reporter to do a review/report of a coffee shop is not same as faking a HDB officer to gain enterance to a flat ... nor same as pretending to be a magazine photographer to gain enterence to a private resident ...

you are comparing apples and oranges.

I thought you didn't want to "argue/quarrel"? If you wish to continue, I can dissect your post to show my point.

I think you should do it!

 

[eikin]

faking as a magazine reporter to do a review/report of a coffee shop is not same as faking a HDB officer to gain enterance to a flat ... nor same as pretending to be a magazine photographer to gain enterence to a private resident ...

you are comparing apples and oranges.



I think you should do it!

yes please go ahead!

 

[wind30]

Hi Wind30,
I stayed in the area for the past 25years, I know most if not every good makan corner in the area. I am upset because the store used to be quite good, better chilli than the one in the hawker centre definitely, I wonder what happen to them, probably change of head chef?

Izzit? I never tried that stall b4 as my FIL swears by the BBQ fish in the market. My FIL is really quite a good cook and his brothers last time sell fish one

Makes me hungry already. Any good stalls around that area? I like the wantan mee but always super long queue.....

 

[centuryegg]

Hiya, the topic was about a stall and bad services.. how come become legal discussion again!?? Another thread about Yoga Shop hardsell tactics also become legal discussion... we have too many lawyers or law students here??

Anyway I think you will get into trouble if you impersonate a food reviewer and ask for a free meal. And it is also provided the stall can catch you after you have left without a trace.

 

[redstorm]

Hiya, the topic was about a stall and bad services.. how come become legal discussion again!?? Another thread about Yoga Shop hardsell tactics also become legal discussion... we have too many lawyers or law students here??

Anyway I think you will get into trouble if you impersonate a food reviewer and ask for a free meal. And it is also provided the stall can catch you after you have left without a trace.

The problem is the TS didn't even utter a word that he was a food reviewer or from a food magazine. Taking pictures of the food he ate is not going to land him in trouble.

 

[centuryegg]

The problem is the TS didn't even utter a word that he was a food reviewer or from a food magazine. Taking pictures of the food he ate is not going to land him in trouble.

Hey hey dont get me involved hah. I am not saying anything about the thread. I am just saying I think u will get into trouble with law if you posed as a food reviewer to get a free meal. Not saying about the thread.

 

[redstorm]

Hey hey dont get me involved hah. I am not saying anything about the thread. I am just saying I think u will get into trouble with law if you posed as a food reviewer to get a free meal. Not saying about the thread.

Relax lah, bah, I am not trying to get you involved; neither am I involved in it. I was just trying to state my point of view. Yeah, I agreed with you that one can get into trouble if he poses as a food reviewer just to get a free meal. But, from my point of view, the TS hasn't done anything wrong - didn't get a free meal neither did he say that he was a food reviewer. Taking pictures of food eaten by one will not make one a food reviewer.

 

[Deadpoet]

Hey hey dont get me involved hah. I am not saying anything about the thread. I am just saying I think u will get into trouble with law if you posed as a food reviewer to get a free meal. Not saying about the thread.

But where was it did the TS mentioned anything about a free meal? I don't beleive a free meal was even part of the discussion?

 

[centuryegg]

But where was it did the TS mentioned anything about a free meal? I don't beleive a free meal was even part of the discussion?

Alamak dude, I already said I am not talking about the thread. I am saying what I think if a person decide to walk into say Tung Lok, tell the waitress, you know i am food reviewer for Makan Sutra... and sigh you know I really would like to try your imperial set menu. And of course I hope that Tung Lok would be so gracious as to sponsor the meal.. you know for publicity purposes. I was just bringing up the point that you may get into trouble for doing that.... and I already say I am not talking about the thread.

 

[vince123123]

yes please go ahead!

Alright, since you wish for it to be done, I shall oblige your request.

As a recap:

You should say you from some local magazine review and will review the store accordingly.

i'm saying that he will get into more complications trying to pull off as a food magazine reporter, i didn't say he is doing it now.

you'll probably get into more legal problems trying to act like food magazine reporter

Hmm really? What legal trouble?

say someone fakes himself as a HDB officer wanting to check your flat, or someone fakes himself as a home deco magazine reporter wanting to enter your house to take pictures, what do you think?

I think your analogies are off the mark - there's a big difference between masquerading as a public servant (first case), and masquerading as a reporter to gain access (tresspass - second case), and eating bad seafood and informing the stall holder that he is going to do a review.

I draw your attention to the original suggestion again (please review once more): "You should say you from some local magazine review and will review the store accordingly."

Are you still maintaining your position that there ie going to be legal trouble?

i'm not going to argue with you. you are the kind of person looking for people to quarrel over legal issues.

i shall state my point. i mention he will 'probably get into more legal problems trying to act like food magazine reporter'

you want to argue, go ahead and do it yourself.

and it's not my problem if you cannot read properly. go ahead and choose what you want to read.

1. You mentioned that there will be legal troubles

2. I asked what type of legal troubles

3. You then quoted the analogies of impersonating a public servant and impersonation to trespass.

4. I said they were wrong analogies and put the situation in context again for you to comment and confirm your opinion.

5. You elected not to comment on the substantial points, and instead decided to backtrack and said you only meant "probably" (getting into trouble). You then said I couldn't read.

If you intended it as probably, then you could have stated it as so in the outset instead of elaborating on what the legal troubles are. Nevertheless, even if we were to take your intention of "probably" into account used, that still means you believe there is a basis of legal trouble.

The basis for this probability then remains the same as you have stated (analogies of pubic servant and trespassing). You have not retracted the analogies which then suggests that you remain of the view that they are correct.

Hence, the summary is: You've tried to substantiate what legal troubles there are. When doubt was raised as to the validity of the explanation (ie they are flawed analogies), you then used the "escape route" to say you only meant "probably". The use of the backdoor "probably" does not rebutt the doubts raised on the flawed analogies. It only shows you trying to backtrack.

I now invite you to answer the a direct question on what legal troubles are there for the TS to say that he is doing a food review in the context of the facts stated above.

----------------------------------------

Well, it looks like there is one other person who shares the same view as me.

faking as a magazine reporter to do a review/report of a coffee shop is not same as faking a HDB officer to gain enterance to a flat ... nor same as pretending to be a magazine photographer to gain enterence to a private resident ...

you are comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Deadpoet]

Alamak dude, I already said I am not talking about the thread. I am saying what I think if a person decide to walk into say Tung Lok, tell the waitress, you know i am food reviewer for Makan Sutra... and sigh you know I really would like to try your imperial set menu. And of course I hope that Tung Lok would be so gracious as to sponsor the meal.. you know for publicity purposes. I was just bringing up the point that you may get into trouble for doing that.... and I already say I am not talking about the thread.

my apology. let's move on.

 

[eikin]

Alright, since you wish for it to be done, I shall oblige your request.

As a recap:
















1. You mentioned that there will be legal troubles

2. I asked what type of legal troubles

3. You then quoted the analogies of impersonating a public servant and impersonation to trespass.

4. I said they were wrong analogies and put the situation in context again for you to comment and confirm your opinion.

5. You elected not to comment on the substantial points, and instead decided to backtrack and said you only meant "probably" (getting into trouble). You then said I couldn't read.

If you intended it as probably, then you could have stated it as so in the outset instead of elaborating on what the legal troubles are. Nevertheless, even if we were to take your intention of "probably" into account used, that still means you believe there is a basis of legal trouble.

The basis for this probability then remains the same as you have stated (analogies of pubic servant and trespassing). You have not retracted the analogies which then suggests that you remain of the view that they are correct.

Hence, the summary is: You've tried to substantiate what legal troubles there are. When doubt was raised as to the validity of the explanation (ie they are flawed analogies), you then used the "escape route" to say you only meant "probably". The use of the backdoor "probably" does not rebutt the doubts raised on the flawed analogies. It only shows you trying to backtrack.

I now invite you to answer the a direct question on what legal troubles are there for the TS to say that he is doing a food review in the context of the facts stated above.

----------------------------------------

Well, it looks like there is one other person who shares the same view as me.

:bsmilie:

well done :thumbsup:

this just prove how hard up you are for an arguement of 'legal' things.

like i said, read what you want. i don't have to be answerable to you, you are not chief justice.

 

[eikin]

btw vince, since you're so into legal stuff, maybe you'll be interested to show TS how he can actually solve this problem he met with through legal channels, at the same time this will keep the discussion here on track. looking forward to your replies :cheers:

 

[vince123123]

I wasn't hard up at all really, I was prepared to let it drop, but since you repeatedly made your request, I obliged you - don't try to twist words around or make it look like I fell into your trap. It was only because of your request that I obliged.

It is clear from the "read what you want" that you have nothing further to add and that you have conceded your position.

I never said I was the Chief Justice or that you are answerable to me - you are conjuring things from nowhere. If you did not wish to answer, you could not have answered in the very first query.

:bsmilie:

well done :thumbsup:

this just prove how hard up you are for an arguement of 'legal' things.

like i said, read what you want. i don't have to be answerable to you, you are not chief justice.

 

[Caspere]

After you take all the photos, did you ask for a receipt?

With both the photos and receipt, then they would be scared.

 

[erictan8888]

let's get back to the real topic TS started....

it is really a very unpleasant experience to think that the shells could have been recycled !!!!

i wonder if this is an isolated case or are there many shops doing the recycling of shells....
makes me worried the next time i order shell food...

 

[Hobbesyeo]

let's get back to the real topic TS started....

it is really a very unpleasant experience to think that the shells could have been recycled !!!!

i wonder if this is an isolated case or are there many shops doing the recycling of shells....
makes me worried the next time i order shell food...

yah lor.. first they used to recycle the garlish (eg: cucumber, cabbage leave etc); now they recycle the shells... i wonder what's next? Recycled soup?

I wonder if there's a hotline or something we can report such practices to. :think:

 

[vince123123]

You know, I heard that a certain hawker centre in Bedok recycled straws that they use for drinking.

Even more disgusting was a prata man who recycled the curry used!! (ie they pour it back into the main pot).

This is sad.

 

[centuryegg]

What I heard before.

1) Certain mala steamboats in Spore recycle the mala stock in your steamboat. In the back area, they drain the debris from the previous diner in strainers and recycle the mala stock for the next round. (However could be rumours spreaded by rivals)