Some thoughts on Singapore Angle

In my previous stub written while I was still on break, FO asked me why I was aghast at the thought that my blog appeared to be a Singapore Angle clone. I didn't reply then because I didn't want to have anything to do with the blogosphere at that point in time ;-)

But it's a fair comment, and needs a reply.

So. Singapore Angle is great, and et cetera et cetera et cetera. With every article it makes an impact, and its quality remains consistently high, due to its doubleblind review process by prominent (...wordfind)personalities in the field for every article submitted - very academic journal-like. :-) As time passes it has also evolved - having spawned a smaller, cuter, bite-sized version of itself in Perspectives, perhaps it has come of age. Or perhaps not. ;-) Perspectives is still toddling along, but is doing well.

What has this got to do with my blog? Well. I wrote the stub not to diss Singapore Angle, but because I fervently believe that half of what made and continues to make Singapore Angle's success is in drawing many different people to comment on what was written there, to comment in a measured, reasonable, substantiated manner of discussion in the spirit of contribution to greater knowledge/understanding. Given that this blog CD has little to no comments of that nature, it falls far short of the standard that SA has set. And that is why I, as writer of CD, was in sum total aghast at the comparison.