[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Burma's constitution meeting takes (r)

Subject: Re: Burma's constitution meeting takes a break

I am also a journalist and I respect everybody's view. I agree with 
mu old friend M.G.G. Pillat that a serious journalist has to look at 
both sides of any story, no matter what it is all about. But 
please stop this "Yangon" business. The capital of Burma is spelt 
"Rangoon" in Burmese also, it's just that the "r" sound gets softened 
in many Asian languages as they are spoken colloquially. In Thailand 
"r" becomes "l", in Burmese it becomes "y". If we are to say "Yangon", 
then it woud also make sense to spell Ratchburi "Latbuli" and "Buriram" 
would becocme "Bulilam". This is childish and distorts the etymology of 
proper names in Burma.

Bertil Lintner

On 27 Jan 1996 PILLAI@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> From: "M.G.G. Pillai" <PILLAI@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject:       Re: Burma's constitution meeting takes a break
> > From: dawn star <cd@xxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: Burma's constitution meeting takes a break
> > 
> ==snipped==
> > are your sincerely wanting to learn something or just being provocative, 
> > its really not clear. I just returned from New Delhi Convention on the 
> > Restoration of Democracy in Burma, and Nepal, close , very close to 
> > Burma, and jerks like you should keep shut or show off their stupidity. 
> > You got a lot to learn whoeveryouare. Stick it.You sound more like a 
> > slorc twit than ever I heard in the last six months. Go to Pizza Hut 
> > order a bunch and vomit over yourself. Invite some proslorc cronies to go 
> > with you. Fuck off. CD Dawn Star
> >
> >
> Unlike you, I want to learn what is going on in Burma.  As a 
> journalist, I look at all sides of a question, get the information I 
> can and evaluate.  I do not automatically believe anyone just because 
> he is anti-Slorc, or spouts a story that damns Yangon;  nor do I 
> accept anything that Yangon dishes out.
>      But all I get here is a series of assertions, and hopes, an 
> inability to see the other fellow's point of view, and a particular 
> penchant to flame anyone who looks at these assertions with a modicum 
> of doubt.  In your eyes, because I do not agree with you, I am 
> stupid.  I am always learning something, especially etymological 
> definitions, here:  a troup group is denied permission, and Oxford 
> Dictionary can be presented with a new definition of "snoop" and 
> "thief";  because you attended a conference in New Delhi and visited 
> Nepal -- "close, very close, to Burma" -- I did not know that;  thank 
> you for that information -- "stupid" is freshly defined.
>     If you want Burma to have the democratic future you have 
> determined for it, then by all means go and do exactly as you do:  
> disallow contrary views to yours;  go along and do to anyone you 
> disagree with what you accuse Slorc of doing to anyone it disagrees 
> with.  That way, you would get the informed and democratic Burma 
> that you are comfortable with.  Keep it up.
>      As for me, I evaluate everything I get, especially what I read 
> in this Burmanet, and decide for myself.  If that makes me pro-Slorc, 
> then so be it.  I am also told, when I respond to some outrageous or 
> unsupportable view, that I am wasting bandwidth;  that I should 
> confine these responses to private emails.  But if you insist on 
> making stupid statements openly, I respond openly:  if you make it to 
> me privately, I respond privately.
>      A Japanese economic analyst writes a piece on Burma, as he is 
> immediately branded as "pro-Slorc";  I throw some doubt on how some 
> pro-democracy backers of Burma behave or refuse to accept your 
> general assertions that Slorc members eat boiled babies for breakfast, 
> and I become a "pro-Slorc crony" and a "pro-Slorc twit".  I begin to 
> get an idea of the democratic Burma you have in mind:  "a Slorc-like 
> Burma, which we control".  Thank you for leaving that impression with 
> me.
> MGG 
> --
> M.G.G. Pillai
> pillai@xxxxxxxxx