From: algebra@leland.Stanford.EDU (Leong Weng Ng)
Subject: Re: OTHMAN BIN AHMAD
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 07:37:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.061414.13922@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.151544.15034@aifh.ed.ac.uk> pingsian@aifh.ed.ac.uk (pingsian@aifh.ed.ac.uk) writes:
>
>: 
>: Mr Othman Bin Ahmad,
>: 
>:         you wrote on 27 Jul 1992 at 11:37:52 the following :
>: 
>: >  The above do not tell the WHOLE STORY/TRUTH. What do you expect from
>: >  Chinese Journalists/editors.

	Assuming that this statement was made independently
of any other supporting evidence, then it is certainly an
insulting remark.

>: 
>:         I think you have been creating a lot of unpleasant feeling among
>: different races using the Network.  Lets not forget that the network is
>: for sharing of cultures, sciences and technology etc ...  This is not a
>
>What better way for sharing culture but to discuss it openly? How could the 
>chinese student show respect by criticising ISLAM in the open, especially when
>it is not true?

	You have contradicted yourself re: openness. How
has the Chinese student violated your definition of
openness by criticising Islam in the OPEN? Maybe the real
issue is whether the student had been insulting Islam or not. Maybe
you have included the possibility of insults in your 
definition for yourself (since you insult Chinese journalists)
but excluded that same possibility for the student. In
short, double standards.

>	I hope you and the other chinese students and other chinese poster
>are not the sterotyped chinese all over the world.
>
	If you mean whether Chinese (who are all alike) are the
same as that "you", then I must say your wish is simply impossible
to fulfil because Chinese are not all alike, just as people of
x race are not all alike.

>: place for being ignorant.  I think you should think about what you said
>: before posting news on the network.  Putting words like the above is not a
>: polite way of conveying your message. 
>
>How should I say it?" The editors or journalists of NS have left out a very
>important possibble evidence which may jourpadise the truth or credibility
>of the news being reported. Since Singapore is 75% chinese, the government is
>controlled by chinese, the media is controlled by the government, we may
>expect this downplaying of important evidence to be very significant".
>
>Is that what you like? I do not see any difference in the meaning of the 2
>sentences? The first one is shorter and I never like to dabble in verbosity.
>
	May be slightly on the verbose side, but it is still
better than an uninformative one liner that could easily lead
to bon-fires. But even then it is not satisfactory in that
you never explain why race should be playing such a major
role in explaining the journalistic slip-up. That the issue
of race is such an adaptable item in all kinds of discussions 
kind of deadens its credibility after a while. It's like the
boy who got ignored for crying wolf a second time because
people thought he was just doing it for kicks. In view of that
practical aspect, maybe you should add some meat to your 
complaint so people can really sit up and listen. MHO

Weng Leong
Stanford U.