[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
Burma's constitution meeting takes (r)
Subject: Re: Burma's constitution meeting takes a break
You raise some valid points about the spirit of open debate in a democracy.
You may be right about the boiled babies. I have never heard, nor asserted,
that SLORC eats boiled babies. I do recall reading a human rights report
awhile back, though, about how some officers eat the hearts of their enemies.
I would suggest you write to "Burma Debate", a publication which (in the spirit
of good debate) regularly features a variety of alternate views about the
future of Burma and how to best go about improving the conditions of the people
I, for one, admit that I have not seen enough of the "pros" of a
SLORC-controlled Burma to provide journalistic balance to the landslide of
"cons" one may be exposed to via BurmaNet. But while BurmaNet is a compendium
of reports by such anti-SLORC "sources" as the National League for Democracy,
the United Nations General Special Rapporteur to Burma, and the United States
Congress, BurmaNet also provides a daily roundup of news reports on Burma,
typed verbatim, from balanced reporters like yourself.
In this regard, I think Burmanet provides a valuable service to all of us. For
me, I will probably continue to pursue corporate withdrawal because my views of
SLORC have already been somewhat affected by the people I work with whose
torture scars tell their own story. I cannot diffuse their anti-SLORC passion;
nor do I wish to.
Los Angeles Campaign for a Free Burma
>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
>> 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