From: dasun!nexus!phamh@sunkist.west.sun.com (Hien Pham x7669)
Subject: Re: [SOC] NON SONG MAGAZINE & AUTHOR'S PREROGATIVES
content-length: 6772
Newsgroups: soc.culture.vietnamese
Date: 22 Nov 92 03:56:17 GMT


Duc.Pham wrote :

> In article <9211161953.AA22945@nexus.wdceng.com>
> dasun!nexus!phamh@sunkist.west.sun.com (Hien Pham x7669) writes:
>
> > When I talked to one of
> > the staff members last night, it seems that none of them is aware of what
> > is talked behind their back here on the net.
>
>
> It is obvious that you had talked to the wrong person, for anh Vu~, the
> English editor of Non Song, had been contacted by both the author and
> Horizons.  Apologies had been made, but the **promised (by and Vu~) public
> action** has not been carried out.  Also, whether anyone on NS's staff is on
> the net is not something anyone can be sure about.  Anyone with access to
> Internet or Usenet can read SCV postings, and thus how is it possible to
> affirm that non of NS's staffers reads the news now and then?  This is a
> major presumptuous assumption, among others.

Everybody knows that apologies has been made by NS staff, and that's that.
When I talked to them, they admitted their mistake to me.
Whether further required action has been carried out, that should be
discussed among the parties involved, not here on SCV. You too, are
making assumption some of their staff members will eventually read what
you posted. How can you be sure ??? Let me quote what you said earlier:

>DMP-Although the message I wrote greatly concerned Non Song, it also was
>directed to relevant actions onthe net.  That is, to encourage individuals on
>the net and else where to make the effort to ask for permission when
>appropriate.

As I understood from that statement, you are using NS's mistake
behind their back as an illustration in your attempt to correct the wrong
doings of some netters. What kind of professional courtesy is this, from
a magazine staff to another magazine staff ? You may say that NS doesn't
care about Horizon, in turn, Horizon wouldn't care less about NS's face too.
That makes Horizon then just as irresponsilble as NS, wouldn't you say ?
Or as some of those vietnamese magazines out there which never hesitate to
backstab each other when they have a chance.

And please don't give me that ludicrous statement: "My opinion is not
that of Horizon's."  If the above statement is true, may I say that
everything you said concerning Horizon and NS in your
orginal posting could be all fake since you are not representing Horizon ?


> Further, I don't think what I did is backstabbing by most definitions.
> Although there are some ostentatious negative sounding in my original
> message, the general theme and goal was not to humiliate NS or any of its
> distinguised affiliates.  Individual inference and interpretation is beyond
> my authority.

Would you slap someone in the face and say later: "Oh it was good intention,
I did not mean any harm. If you interpret that as an insult, that is your individual
inference and interpretation and I don't really care" ?
Read your original posting again, and see what kind of a slap you were throwing.

>
> Additionally, about whether or not anyone on this net cares, it too is
> another invalid assumption that no one gives a darn.  I'm sure that most
> aren't concerned with the matter involved, but I thought this was a public
> forum and thus anyone, in her own right, can choose her favorite posting to
> read.  I've received/ read a few responses, including the fore-quoted.  So I
> take the liberty to figure that at least some had read my message (but
> unfortunately, I haven't read any posting that supported my posting)
>
> I'ts no doubts that Byline was a good story, and thus the more readers have
> the chance to enjoy it, the better the purpose served.  I'm sure Cindy (Quynh
> Trang) Nguyen would not mind NS publishing her story, if they had asked her
> in advance.  Also, it's note-worthy that I wrote the original posting with
> Cindy's support and agreement.
>
> May be it's "tie^?u tie^'t" (HP) to oppose NS's *well-intended* behavior, but
> the sole purpose was to right the wrong, and to help reserve the dignity of
> VNese writers in general.  If one ever writes something that is as personal
> as "Byline" she will understand why I did what I had done.  I have nothing to
> gain from criticizing NS, but someone's got to say what's right, with the
> only hope that some contemplative reader will appreciate what I did.
>

So you want to throw away someone's dignity to preserve someone else's dignity.
It is, I tell you, very very "cao thu*o*.ng". Co' bao gio*` nghe ca^u "anh em trong
nha` -do'ng cu*?a ba?o nhau" chu*a ? Cu`ng nghe^` vo*'i nhau, cu`ng mu.c -di'ch,
va^.y ma` -du.ng ti' la` -dem ra public ma` chu*?i.

I have to appologize to all netters for putting up with this headache.
I've interacted with all of the officers in to^?ng ho^.i sinh vie^n
nam cali. Some - i hate to say this, and refuse to elaborate - are impossible
to tolerate. But some are very very nice people. And Vu~, the chief editor
of NS, belongs to this group. He is a very reasonable, understanding man.
People make mistake sometimes. And to people like Vu~, I am sure all it takes
is a nice gesture to acknowledge him of his mistake, and he will apologize
and not repeat it again. I've seen "ban ba'o chi'" there in action. They voluntary
put out, working very hard, sometimes pulling all nighters to put together a publication
that helps preserve the vietnamese culture. They gain nothing on the personal level.
La`m vie^.c thie^.n ma` co`n bi. chu*?i le^n chu*?i xuo^'ng thi` .... well just put
yourself in their shoes.

-Du*'c, if you did not get any public appology from NS, can't you make another phone
call to make sure that there was not any misderstanding during the last conference
of the involved parties instead of making a mess here on SCV, and in turn degrading
your own character as well that of Horizon's ? When I say "tie^?u tie^'t," I was being nice.
I can't imagine that Vu~ would not cooperate to carry out any reasonable demand.


> There's a Buddhist saying:
>
> "Oan u*'c kho^ng ca^`n bie^.n ba.ch, vi` bie^.n ba.ch la` he`n nha't."
>
> I guess I don't have the moral courage to not correspond to criticisms of my
> action, but I believe that man got to do what man got to do.  (i.e., I don't
> apologize for what I did.  If I could do it all over again, I would do the
> exact same thing.)  And so be it.


Someone quoted Mozart a while ago here on SCV. As I remember, it goes something
like: "He who does not love and forgive, does not deserve to be a man." Mozart's
saying is not necessarily correct, but I thought may be
one should be a man first before "got to do what man got to do."

>
>
>
> Ki'nh Bu't,
>
> "-Do^.c Co^ La~ng Tu*?" Pha.m Minh -Du*'c
>

With sincere appology to all netters, this is my last posting
regarding this matter.

Hien.