From: selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering)
Subject: Re: STOP TE NEWS
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:03:59 GMT

In article <Bs7ppt.5LM@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>, nasokan@yoho.uwaterloo.ca (Asokan) writes:
> In article <Bs7Lnx.EFG@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
> [...]
> >
> >       This appears to be a "hot" topic with strong feelings running among
> >       valaaignar's ! I am also against propaganda but I don't see why 
> >       *events* and other *facts* related to Tamil-speaking Srilankns, or
> >       Malasians, Singapoorians, should not be posted by a valagnar if he
> >       felt it important enough to share with fellow-valagnars. I certainly
> 
> It would be hard to decide what is a fact and what is not.
              ^^^^^(1)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> If LTTE claims it shot down a fighter plane and the SL govt.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^(2)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> claimed that the accident was due to mechanical failure,
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> which is correct?
  ^^^^(3)^^^^^^^^^^^

    (1)Yes, I certainly agree with you, it is hard to decide which is
       fact and *precisely* for this reason many like me might
       want to hear all one can hear and not mute one side !
       May I humbly ask: merely because it is difficult to decide, is it
       wise or a right thing NOT to hear what is said !!?? Why are you
       afraid even to hear ! Let me share with you valagnarE I honestly
       hate propaganda ( pro-Tamil, anti-Tamil, pro or againt Hindutva
       so too about Bahai, Islam, Christianity, etc. etc.) but
       I honestly like to hear and I want to make my own judgement about an
       event or "fact" ; I don't see anything wrong with it !
    (2) If LTTE claims and SL govt. says the opposite, and if the valignar
        reported only one side, it is biased reporting ( or reporting
        with partial knowledge) but for this reason he/she can not be
        prevented from posting what he/she wants to post. In due course 
        people will know what to make out of it. 
        If a reporter is impartial he/she might report as many sides as
        might be available to him/her.
     (3)To answer your Q which is correct ? At the time of reporting one
        may not know which is correct. I am still struggling to understand
        Justice Bain's case and I was truly touched by his open letter to
        Indian Express. This example I'm quoting to draw your attention to
        the difficulties of knowing "truth'. 
        
> 
> If PTI reports that some naxalites were killed in an "encounter"
> and the opposition politicians claim that some innocent civilians
> are killed in a bout of police excesses, which is correct?

     I am quite puzzled ! Are you saying we should not read newspaper
     at all ?! Are these not intrinsic difficulties in living in these
     days . If you are not interested just say these are bogus and skip
     those articles. The issue is should someone be shouted down for
     sustainable reason.
> 
> A verifiable news-item is pretty much a contradiction in terms
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     Are you not implying it is a useless to read newspapers ? I share
     your concern in the difficulty of finding the truth but your view
     appears rather extreme. ( no offence or condescension meant) 
     If you feel so strongly you might want not to buy a newspaper and 
     just skip all news items in this valai. 
> these days.  If we want to keep SCT free of flames, let us decide
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        I agree flames are sheer waste of effort but not discussions
        and exchange of ideas. Flames are often a result of excessive
        emotional attachements with little reasoning behind as far as
        I have seen in the last month or so I have been reading articles
        in ACT,SCT, and SCI. We should certainly strive for flamefestfree
        valai !

> to discuss politics (which includes "philosophy" and "political ideas")
> *AND* "reports of news events" where they belong, the junkyards
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^
> of SCI and SCSL and such.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

       Please don't be so condescending if I may say so ! I agree a lot of 
       nonsense postings occur periodically in  SCI ( from my exposure to it 
       in the past month) but that seems quite normal. First and foremost 
       one can easily
       skip the articles one does not want to read. One man's food is another
      man's poison ! What is junk for one is all gold for another.  
> 
> >       would think it undesirable if some "philosophy" or "political ideas"
> >       of some "terrorist" organizations is posted but even then the best
> >       one can do is to ignore such stuff ( can not prevent I think !). 
> 
> Yes.  As of now, there is no mechanism of prevention without
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> wading into the murky waters of freedom of expression and
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> charter of rights.  UW administration discovered this two years
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ago.  Stanford did a little earlier.  Scores of other universities
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> are waking up to the same reality.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

       So ? What do you suggest ? Hear only how America neutralized 
       some "enemy" targets? Don't want to know why or how a Buddhist
       monk in Vietnam or some such place burnt himself alive in a meditative
       padmaasana without even twitching ( this I saw in TV sometime during
       Iraq encounter). I was extremely interested in knowing what the monk said
       before he set himself afire solemnly. I happen to believe that probably 
       that monk might have achieved more with that kind of resolve than to 
       burn himself but that is just my opinion. I believe recently some 
       US senator showed scenes of India's torture of its political prisoners 
       to argue against some aid to India and India lost a valuable aid which 
       in my opinion should not have been so based on some emotional appeal 
       (this I read in SCI).  But I think it will be more undesirable to 
       stipulate a ban on such news than reporting if some valagnar wants. 
       If as you say Universities are waking up it is a good thing ! 
        Many establishments don't want freedom ! There is nothing new in
        this ! 
       
> [...]
> >         epporuL eththanmaith thaayinum apporuL
> >         meypporuL kaaNpathu arivu
> 
> Precisely.  I wonder if the shortcomings of one's ability
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> for independant analysis and "meypporuL kaaNal" is what
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> makes one bristle at perceived propaganda.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

     This is a fine point. But the solution does not lie in preventing
     some information. If it is a shortcoming in one's ability to discern,
     then he/she can desist from reading or can desist from believing
     or he/she should sharpen the acumen
     but can he/she legitimately ask to stop another of such postings 
     just because he/she is not able to decide or has a shortcoming as
      you put it ? 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> - Asokan

    I hope you would earnestly *consider* my points. [ The word consider
     means "view from all sides" and it is a beautiful English word] 

    anbudan,

    Selva Selvakumar


Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil