Subscription request from SLORC (r)

[tun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

>Response   5  of   5
>*Written 9:10PM Jan 17, 1995 by uneoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in cdp:reg.burma *
>From: U Ne Oo <uneoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>Dear Mr Strider:
>
>Regarding the subscription by SLORC, I do have reservation about 
>inclusion of it into reg.burma-list. I think the exclusion of it 
>from reg.burma-list has been much more justified.

If you are going to exclude the request, it ought to be done so on the ground 
that requester is a SLORC' rep. I tend to agree with Soe Pyne's argument
below 
   "that the international community does not want to have anything to do 
    with it, ...  as someone ordinary and not as someone from a slorc embassy."

On the issue of privatcy, there is *no* privatcy on the Net. There are many
people on the Net who are in SLORC's pocket already. In general, one
shouldn't write anything on the Net that doesn't want to appear on the 
frontpage of New York Times.

Ct

====    ====    ====    ====    ====    ====    ====
Response   4  of   5

** Written  1:25 PM  Jan 17, 1995 by maung in cdp:reg.burma **
Subject: Re:  Subscription request from SLORC

Doug,

Personally, I don't give a hoot if the slorc guy wants to be on 
reg.burma. but, just to make slorc know that the international
community does not want to have anything to do with it, we should
decline his request. In fact we should tell that person to subscribe
as someone ordinary and not as someone from a slorc embassy. that
way, we wouldn't be encouraging slorc's legitimacy. it's nice to be
neutral and fair, but not now when slorc is using every dirty trick
possible to justify its rule.

soe
** End of text from cdp:reg.burma **