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

its over from here



M.G.G. Pillai wrote:
> 
> > 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.i dont know who this guy is but i refuse to have any more conversations 
with him and will not let any more postings go over the burmausernet
this is a signal to him and to all. No more contact to him from cd. Sorry 
that it happened in the first place.