Re: Lu+o+ng na(ng bi`nh da^n - Alan Sokal

["DiemQuynh Nguyen" <diemquynhng@hotmail.com>]

Hi hi, Ba'c AnHai o*i:
Bo^. nay ba'c kie^m the^m chu*'c "tho^ng di.ch vie^n" vnsa nu*~a ho*? :-)
Co*m, cha'o, pho*? da.o na`y na^'u de^'n dda^u rui`!
DX (thi'ch nha^'t co*m! VNese ma` la.i!)

From: AnHai Doan <anhai@cs.washington.edu>

>Hi, perhaps ba'c Vu~ misunderstood ba'c AiViet.
>
>I think what he means is as follows: You don't need to
>create issues from non-issues. For something that is
>(inherently) non-issue, if you try to make it an issue,
>force the other side to consider it as an issue, and try to
>address it in an "educated, scienfitic" manner, you will
>either make a fool out of yourself, or irritate the hell out
>of others.
>
>Why ngan ke^u to, or dda' nu+'t is inherently a non-issue.
>The father raising the question is hmm... a^'m dda^`u, the
>guy trying to explain it in a "chu+~ lo?ng" manner is even
>more ... a^'m dda^`u, to say gently. :-)
>
>Come to think of it, in whatever area of life, the ability
>of recognizing what is an issue, what matters, and what is
>not seems to be extremely important. In research, we are
>often told that finding the right problem is already half
>the success. Likewise, in communication, FIRST we should try
>to understand what is an issue, what matters to the other
>side, ONLY THEN we decide what to say. If we only pick
>problems we think important, but the other side doesn't,
>what we say is likely to fall on deaf ears.
>
>Tra^`n Ma.nh Ha?o is not at all a good literature critic,
>his writings are full of nitpicking, chu.p mu~, trashing,
>and character assasinations, and he has been getting even
>worse in recent years. He is not a professional critic. But
>why do his writings grasp attention, and why sometimes even
>seemingly highly educated people tend to agree with him?
>That's partly because he's pretty good at pointing out
>*relevant* issues, those that are of concerns to the
>readers. For example, his recent article on CHCC is
>professionally pretty bad, and there is not much that can be
>learned from there. But he managed to voice a legitimate
>concern that has worried many people familiar with the
>literature situation in Vietnam. So people reading his essay
>will node to themselves and say: "Ok, I see he's a bad boy,
>as usual, but I do agree with him on this one concern."
>
>There, first, you need to understand what is the real issue.
>Then you raise the issue and make sure that the
>audience/reader also agree it is an issue. Then you can
>bring forth whatever professionalism/solution that you have
>to bear on the issue.
>
>Instead, what we have heard so far in this TMH thread? Some
>people from VN said: "yes, his writing is bad, but he does
>raise a legitimate concern, I share his concern too. This is
>a concern of mine, and I would like to talk about it". Some
>people outside VN jumped all over TMH and Nhan Dan and
>started saying: "God, this is so unprofessional, this guy is
>stupid, there is a danger of going back to Stalin-style
>blabla, how could he trash people like that, i'm shocked,
>this is an example of the state imposing its control again,
>he is bo^`i bu't for someone, you guys don't understand, you
>should be more professional, you should be careful otherwise
>you will loose that little writing freedom you have, etc and
>etc...".
>
>This is ridiculous. What these people must have done is to
>realize that all these things that are issues for them are
>absolutely non-issues for the folks at home, at least in
>that context. Unprofessional writing? Trashing others? Who
>cares, we have seen so much unprofessional writing and
>trashing from TMH and others to be surprised by that. We
>know we cannot convince them to change their style anyway.
>Going back to Stalin style? In this article? Give me a
>break! Shocked by his language? You ain't see nothing of
>VNese literature language, yet.
>
>Instead, they should have realized that the real issue for
>the folks at home (or at least some domestic VNese on this
>forum) is the concern raised at the end of TMH article. We
>have also loudly said so, by three seperate persons. But
>they didn't even bother to listen. They would like to
>convince us that that is not an issue, they would like to
>decide for us what is important for us and what is not. :-)
>That's ...hmm ... very funny and also very irritating.
>
>In general, professionalism is not as important as the
>ability to point out or recognize a relevant issue. Tran
>Manh Hao's writing is not professional, but he does have his
>points, and people pay attention to him because of those
>points. I don't intend this as a defense for Tran Manh Hao,
>only as an illustration that having a point and raising a
>relevant issue is much more important than "professionally"
>addressing nonrelevant issues.
>
>I support and understand the need to do things
>professionally, and have consistently voiced my concerns
>about it. But I have also consistently said that to address
>or criticize anything at home, one should make an effort to
>find out first if that something is considered an issue or
>is relevant at all to the folks at home.
>
>Sorry for the unprofessional writing, but I'm in a hurry.
>Cheers.
>


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com