Burma's constitution meeting takes (r)

[freebrma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

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 
there.  

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.

Sincerely,

David Wolfberg
Los Angeles Campaign for a Free Burma




You 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
>