[Dan]

Deciding whether a person is guilty of committing a sacrilege in breach of a religious harmony law is not a simple matter of saying 'yea' or 'nay.' There are different interpretations of the law to consider, differing concepts on the rightness and wrongness of the alleged 'disrespectful remark' to ponder over. Things get complicated once religion enters the equation

Is it sacrilege to say Buddha and Muhammad need Jesus? The poll is not always an accurate mirror of online opinion, not when many voters are too biased to think objectively about the case. And especially not when there's a disproportionately high number of netizens and their exact clones who dislike OYK's guts and could hardly contain their glee over the opportunity to sully his reputation and hopefully vote him out of the forum.

The main point of contention is whether OYK is really as ugly as sin, putting their constant bickering aside and factoring out their personal feelings in making a judgment. The result of the opinion poll came as no surprise to me, and I believe also to clear-headed and unbiased persons with no axe to grind.

Agree breaching the law of religious harmony is not a simple matter but in Oyk's case there is more to it.
If you have the time go and read all his posts.
On many occasions during discussions or debate he would pull forrummer's mother into the arena including humiliating and degrading personal insults. His character flaws surely has a part to blame when voters decide.
More than 80 percent is not a small matter either.
In the recent Presidential Election when the issue of 'Pretty Girl' spread out voters became bias in their decisions against TKL.
There must be some degree of bias to make the difference in decision making.
There is nothing wrong with your beautiful and persuasive writing but it didn't work on me.