Re: Hotmail

["Toan" <toan@usa.net>]

Oh boy,

What did I get myself into?!

----------
> From: Tuan Pham <tuan.pham@unsw.edu.au>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <vnsa-l@csd.uwm.edu>
> Subject: RE: Hotmail
> Date: Thursday, 03 April, 1997 11:46 PM

======quote my text earlier 
> >I studied this type of problems as one of the first lessons of a
Postmodern
> >Textual theories class.
> >...
> >I think a look at this at a broader scope is worth a discussion.
Narrowing
> >it to personal attitude may not be helpful since it will likely
side-track
> >elsewhere.
======

======from ba'c Tua^'n 
> Hello Ba'c Te`o
> 
> What do you mean by "a broader scope" and "personal attitude"?
> Are they the post-modernist equivalents of "everything goes"
> and "code of behaviour"? :)
======

Na`o, ba'c Tua^'n ha~y nguo^.i mo^.t ti' vo+'i to^i dda~ chu+'. <Hotmail>
ma~i cu~ng ddu+` la('m.

I mean that in the context of my descriptions and explanations all along
the messages about idendity and origination, etc. Please refer to examples
and explanations in reply to ba'c A'i Vie^.t's posting(s) on the subject. 

I find the implications very intriguing, but I think by this message, we
are taking different contexts to <argue> on one subject heading! 

If asking a question is for an answer, please clarify the question and make
it so that the person attempting to answer can answer within context for at
least an attempt at understanding--if that be the purpose of the question.

<Personal attitude> is a paraphrase from a message earlier, asking
something like <is the attitude above this or that? etc in direct reponse
to a quoted line while not defining or limiting, or explaning the intended
meaning of the usage of <<attitude>>.

=====my text quoted 
> >We haven't had that kind of cho+. ca' and anonymity here ...is
> >it because people are NOT anonymous? It might have to do with other
aspects
> >like how we exchange, our sense of courtesy and respect. These can still
> >perfectly hold even with an <anonymous identity>.
=====

=====ba'c Tua^'n's reply
> My experience is that when a person joins a reputable forum
> under a fake name it is almost always with destructive
> purposes.
=====

Yes, as I did state quite a few if not enough times of seeing and agreeing
with this concern!

Experience with forums, I do not have. VNSA is my first, besides purely
academics ones at school in the past. Group dynamics made a very big
difference. The Admins, then mostly were professors, made a big difference.
 
I still am a little hesitant to come to a conclusion that a <fake> (we 'd
better define this word!) name person should always get a <destructor>
label on the forehead.

George Eliot joined many circles by the name of George Eliot. She built it
so much now that people refuse to know her by Mary-Ann (?) Evans Cross. 

Who was XYZ in writing, Nguye^~n A'i Quo^'c in Paris, and Ho Chi Minh in
Pa'c Bo'?

So, I guess the experience applies here as well?
Or exceptions?

 
> I don't know about the USA, but here in Australia
> the major newspapers still don't publish anonymous letters.
> They have a hundred-year-old reputation to protect.
> Looks like they are content to talk about postmodern theories,
> not adhering to them! :)
=====
Newspapers, of course they don't publish anon letters. You do know about
the USA--the same.

Then how is a discussion Group likened to A Newspaper ? (Also, how
differed?). There are intricacies here, I think. With all sincerity of
thought, I see a difference if not many differences.

Before I go on, please do not get it wrong that I am dismissing or
advocating sides. I am interested in the subject and its implication, and
how people perceive this. 

Ba'c A'i Vie^.t thought it NOT possible to NOT have an ISP in order to get
a free account. That is NOT true.
This example was an angle of perception that if one took the premise, one
would destine to mis-conceive the matter.
Even with one's own ISP, people are not reqired to use their real name in
the address. In fact a few government accounts at my work even gave me a
bunch of numbers in place of my name, and I hate that very much. Others do
not have a choice--or do not know about their options. Still others are
afraid of revealing themselves, not having a good sense of how things are
on cyberspace. 

I do not claim to be a post-modernist or a theorist of sort. I took a
class, and was honestly interested in the subject without any implication
in my words. The study in that class was NOT about being post-modern as
much as about the TIME marked as post-modern, with its new sets of
protocols and implications in identities,  groups, dynamics, interactions,
presentations, and perceptions.

I buy no code of behaviour of <that> implied sort nor do I see the same way
the questions are phrased to me about post-modernism.

The word post-modern are used here twice, in a way I am not happy to
discuss because it seems unrelated to my hopeful explanations earlier.
 

> 
> Frank Nguyen asked
> 
> >By the way, I really do not understand what you mean by saying this:
> >
> >"When did the rot set in? Is the attitude above typically 
> >American or only Viet-American?"
> >
> >Could you please explain a little bit more?
> >
> 
> Well, it is not a Vietnamese attitude, and not an Australian 
> attitude, as far as I know!
> 
> Call me a dinosaur if you like -
> I participate in cyberspace but see no reason to change
> my code of behaviour or moral beliefs just because it's 
> a different environment.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Tuan Pham

Well, it comes to that. I never thought anyone could change anyone else.
Let me leave this with a few quotes from writers who dearly struggled in a
time of changing identities, and I really like them:

=====quote:

Our deeds still travel with us from afar,
And what we have been make us what we are

		from George Eliot (Mary-Ann Evans Cross): Middlemarch.

The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heav'n of Hell and a Hell of Heav'n.

		from John Milton: PARADISE LOST, book I

The truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.
		
		from William Blake: Auguiries of Innocence.

+++extra:

Da.o kha? dda.o,  phi thu+o+`ng Dda.o;
Danh Kha? danh, phi thu+o+`ng Danh

Vo^ danh thie^n ddi.a chi thi?
Hu+~u danh va.n va^.t chi ma^~u. 

	a`, ca'i o^ng vie^'t ma^'y ca^u na`y o^?ng vo^ danh ddo'--Dda.o Ddu+'c
Kinh


Ba'i la`ng tui ddi ngu?

Toa`n