Subscription request from SLORC (r)

[frankj@xxxxxxxx]

>From: uneoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Subscription request from SLORC
>Conf: reg.burma
>Date: 17 Jan 95 21:10 GMT+1000
>Lines: 69
>
>From: U Ne Oo <uneoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> Received: (from strider) by igc2.igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.5 ) id
>>
>> A person who has identified himself as an employee of Burma's
>> embassy in Washington has requested a subscription to the
>> BurmaNet News.  To date, no one has been refused a subscription
snip
>> I am sending this note out because a few subscribers distribute
>> material over the reg.burma mailing list with requests that it
>> not be forwarded to more public newsgroups such as
>> soc.culture.burma.
>
>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.
>
>In fact, what we discuss here in reg.burma-list are exclusive to
>the people on the side of democracy. Things we are discussing here
>are to beat the SLORC down, and to forced them to relinquish power.
>We do need some privacy of discussion on policy and actions. I don't
>think even rival parties in full democracy (left alone the Burmese
>Democrats and SLORC) will share full accounts of what their strategies
>and future directions each other. Therefore, it is quite justified
>to exclude SLORC from the reg.burma.
>
>
FWIT I have just obtained Internet access (via a computer society) and when
I looked for newsgroups using the keyword "Burma" I got the name
"reg.burma".  There are no restrictions on my reading this material at the
moment - I don't have to be sent email by strider as it is all posted
publicly.

That makes me think it is a non-issue.  You are already very public!

Frank J, Melbourne