From: vibama@cs.hw.ac.uk (Scott Doan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.vietnamese
Subject: Are you Mr BO^.p CHO^.P ?????
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:50:41 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Aug12.165557.19633@news.media.mit.edu> quangl@tabasco.sps.mot.com writes:

>|>| cause misunderstanding I wonder if you were... but personally I  |
>|>| advise you to fully understand the matter before jumping in and  |
>|>| threatening.. like Tu.i VC in VN (just kidding ..:-)) I didn't   |
>|>| mean you are as I said above). It seemed ) to me that you        |
>|>| understood the matter superficially and jumped into conclusion.  |
>
>There is a point that is not personal, and that have been known around
>the world. :-) DDK started the ordeal by ascusing anh Hie^`n Hoa`ng
>revealed his personal email. 

Read what I have written ... It was my intention to remind Hien Hoang
not to forward a private email to the net as it is the breach of
the private email on net ... in the case Hien Hoang was even worse
as he had deleted some parts of my message that had caused some
misunderstnading ... In fact I didn't criticise Hien Hoang that much
though he was the one who sent me a low moral message before ...
You just didn't understand anything or if you do but very superficially
like usual, jumped in and threatened ... It seems you didn't acknowledge
your fault and continue keeping up the prejudice. It is sad though ... 

>Then he ended up by revealing the content
>of a personal mail from anh Hie^`n. Now the world knew that anh Hien
>had to apologize him in private. What a spoiled kid! 

Again, you don't know what had happened and already jumped into conclusion ...
In one word to describe your nature, I would address you as MR BO^.P CHo^.P
Yeah You are ... For the matter above, I revealed the mesage's content
with Hien Hoang 's permision... I did ask him to make a public
apology but it seemed too much for him so I volunteered to do his job
by telling the net what he had written me ... My respect for the private
email law doesn't allow me to forward his apology message to the net anyway...
My intention to save Hien Hoang from further attack on his private email law's
vilation, was driving me to reveal his content's mesage.
Is that clear to you now. Mr Bo^.p Cho^.p ??? I am not exaggerating
to name you this term in this case... You do so often on the net... 
Here is another occasion (but still still QUESTIONING ... hope you will clear up
if you are not really bo^.p cho6.p in all case though) :

In one of your very recent posting, you have labeled the Communist as
thieves, robbers and rapists ... Am I correct anh Quang Le ??? `

>>DDo^'i vo+'i ngu+o+`i Vie^.t ha?i ngoa.i mi`nh "co^.ng sa?n" la` mo^.t
>>tu+` xa^'u, gio^'ng nhu+ "cu+o+'p," "tro^.m," va` "hie^'p da^m" va^.y.

I respectfuly
asked you if you are standing out of your old world and siding yourself
along with those "Cho^'ng Co^.ng Cu+.c DDoan" on net as those above terms
are indeed very harsh to ackowledge for a communist supporters .
But you seem to ignore my question ... Your silence has allowed me to
assume that you have agreed with my assumption as there is saying "Im la(.ng la`
ddo^`ng y'" ... However you do confuse me when you posted the article below: 

 > Hello friends,
 > 
 > I just received an issue of "Electronics and Informatics" 2/92
 > which is published by HCMcity information center in Science and
 > technology. The two proposals that have been discussed in this group
 > were introduced as:

................deleted ...................
 
 > The first article titled "DDe^` a'n cho ca'c tie^u chua^?n ma~
 > ho'a ky' tu+. tie^'ng Vie^.t trong khuo^n kho^? xu+? ly' va(n
 > ba?n tho^'ng nha^'t." by ca'c anh James Do, Ngo Thanh Nhan, and
 > Hoang Nguyen.
 > 
 > The second article titled "Mo^.t khuo^n kho^? tho^'ng nha^'t
 > cho vie^.c xu+? ly' du+~ kie^.n Vie^.t ngu+~." by "Nho'm nghie^n
 > cu+'u tie^u chua^?n tie^'ng Vie^.t."
 > 
 > Each article takes three 8x11" pages. That means the original
 > articles are sumarized. If any of you need to see a copy of these 
 > articles I would be glad to make a copy.
 > 
 > Tha^n,
 > Quang Le
   

I am not sure what your relation with those gentlement James Do, Ngo Thanh Nhan
ang Hoang Nguyen is and I am not bo^.p cho^.p to conclude that you do have
contact with VN government via these people. But I am pretty confused right now
therefore, I will appreciate if you can spend sometime to explain your intention
of posting the above news ... It does contradict with your verdict over
the Communist as " thieves, robbers and rapists" though...Or were you
BO^.P CHO^.P to express such statement in the public forum that discredits
yourself in the future... and the above news is "La^.p co^ng chuo^,c to^.i"
(Oh well, I am still questioning if this is true). 
Anh QL, if you refuse to position yourself with those anti-commies
supporters (my previous question) then it implies that you never
want to harm the Communist and the above statement was made when you were
Bo^.p Cho^.p .. then... 

In the shortest word, I wonder if you could make your choice, either Mr anti-commies
supporter or Mr Bo^.p Cho^.p ... anh Quang Le... 

Remember I do not come to any conclusion YET ... I am not bo^.p
cho^.p though ... I am just confused with so many assumption when I am
trying to understand you... so please don't upset if I have questioned you too much.
I am here to learn and listen ... Do point out my error and answer`
my questions anh Quang Le. 

Thanks in advance...

Sincerely,

DDK
 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.vietnamese