[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
SECURITY ZONES AND RESOLUTION 688 ( (r)
Subject: Re: SECURITY ZONES AND RESOLUTION 688 (REPOST)
Dear Tun Myint,
One quick response: I do not intentionally post the message twice. The
message was posted at approximately 24 hours earlier. When I check out
the mailbox, I thought I have to send it again. Sorry about that.
My personal opinion about debating on what you raised as issues on the net
will need a lot of energy and time. As we usually experienced on the net,
there will be Reply's and re:Reply and re:re:re:Reply and its goes on.
That will be quite unproductive so that I would happily leave un-answered
for you now. But that do not mean I have no respect of your views, of
course. Few of the issues, I would reply you a bit later.
So far as my postings and its credibility of analysis is concerned, you
are very much entitled to your own views. No one is forced to accept what
I say: you always have your own choice and freedom of thought and view.
With best regards, U Ne Oo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
On 3 Mar 1996 tmyint@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: TUN MYINT <tmyint@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: SECURITY ZONES AND RESOLUTION 688 (REPOST)
>
> Dear Dr. U Ne Oo, Khin-Byar:
>
> If you would take my flak with broad shoulders and consider yourself as
> responsible on what you post, please answer my questions. First, it is
> enough if you post once in Burmanet unless otherwise recipients request
> you to post it again or twice. I and am sure other recipients don't
> certainly have time to view all your long postings, although interesting,
> but twisting most of the facts with wishy-washy analysis of your own.
>
> It is understandable that many replies you receive due to your initiative
> communications to whatever officials and responsible person are just to
> show their normal professional manners. But you might show those to some
> recipients in the net to boast with pomposity.
>