via youtube.com
I wanted to post this a couple of days ago but I kept forgetting. For lyrical awesomeness, crank up the volume and really watch the video.
I wanted to post this a couple of days ago but I kept forgetting. For lyrical awesomeness, crank up the volume and really watch the video.
If the title doesn't say it, I don't know what does. It's an old video I just uncovered while I was browsing through my Youtube favorites..
Nonton dan enjoy shownya! Bukan sibuk cari signal. Siapkan mental bahwa tidak akan ada signal data #tips #JJF
That tweet was a huge disappointment for me. I would expect more out of a seasoned event organizer.
I've had my fair share of doing events and in no condition should the organizer talk how their audience should stop worrying about operator's reception there.
There are lots of other ways to tell people that the place has no reception.
Remember, it's YOUR gig and it's YOUR venue of choice. If your audience feels that your venue of choice sucks because there's no cellphone reception, then tell them you're sorry for the inconvenience. Simple. Don't go and tell them to stop worrying about it. I wasn't even on the venue and experienced any of it but I still felt insulted.
Remember, it's the 21st century. People need mobile communication.
[Update]
Just saw their Twitter account and they said they are sorry for the incident earlier. Kudos for the apology!
These are just a couple of random thoughts, or rather questions, regarding the latest on the Century drama. Now, I'm no political expert, I don't even have an economics degree or whatnot. Think of me as being a samaritan with a thought or two.
1. Why does a parliament, who's supposed to be pro-reform, demand legal action against two top reformers?2. Doesn't it seem odd to you that those who demand legal action should be made are the sides who lost the general election, both presidential and parliamentary? And those who seem to have broken terms with the ruling side, is one way or the other, related to those who demand legal action.Now, for our honored parliament members who opposed the bailout, I also have a couple of questions for you.
1. If you were the decision maker at that time. What would you have done? Would you stall the decision-making, knowing perfectly well that if the country DOES take a turn to the worst, you alone will be held accountable? Or would you did as those you demand legal action did? Go for broke and hope that the country is saved.2. IF, the decision makers hadn't done what they had done, would you still hold them accountable for not trying to save the country from a potential crisis that will have set us back way further than what '98 had done?Thoughts and feedbacks are welcome. Just remember that the situation at that time was purely analytical. There was no real evidence (correct me if I'm wrong), that the country would go into a crisis. Nevertheless, a big economy powerhouse, namely the USA, was rolling downhill and as the Great Depression once taught us, they COULD take us down with them.
I will not tolerate fighting, cussing and the use of dirty words on the comments. I will even delete the over-usage of the CAPS LOCK. Say your thoughts, don't yell it.
