The Relevance of "?"

My previous entry which had the title " Ted Failon...Shades of O.J" used the punctuation mark "?". Now, if Marocharim is to be believed, this entry aims to propound a theory or a "parallelism". But, was it intended to maliciously link the case of Manong Ted with that of O.J. Simpson?

No.

It was intended to actually squelch the very notion that these two cases have similarities. That's the reason why a question mark was used. It was written to erase every notion that this case has similarities and therefore, justifies the "professional barbarism" by the police to the family of Manong Ted.

Radio commentators had a field day, insinuating that this case has "shades of O.J." last Wednesday, April 15, 2009 and even last Thursday, April 16.I had to articulate that in the article because I heard it. If you're a journalist or an opinion writer, you'll definitely use that in your entry so that later on, you'll be able to provide information that would surely dispel any other notion that it was somewhat linked.

Likewise, if I indeed wanted to even link the case to O.J., I would have erased the question mark and instead wrote " Ted.....Shades of O.J" with a period in the end.

A blogger commented that the last paragraph was "irrelevant". Was it, irrelevant? For some, probably. But, it was not.

It was not irrelevant because it actually aimed to DISPEL certain talk about the alleged parallelism between the case of Failon and O.J. Simpson. By including a statement which says "we need to avoid speculations...etc." means that the writer just articulated a prevailing sentiment and HIS OWN SENTIMENTS were written immediately AFTER that paragraph. And that sentiment clearly and simply says that "AVOID SPECULATIONS".

Hay, naku. Ano ba naman? Hahanap lang ng butas, eh, sa mga ganito pa! Next please!