[To Admin] On suspension

["Ky-Anh D. Phan" <kyanh@ix.netcom.com>]

The below message was sent from my ix.netcom.com account. I'm cleaning
up the mail folders and just now realize that didn't get through. 
Technicalities aside, this message is intended to be here *within* my
suspension period. PLEASE TREAT IT AS SUCH. (Just didn't get time to
make all the technicalities fall into place .. sorry *grin*)

Summary of the message.

1. Sent within suspension period.

2. I can accept suspension per content, but NOT per admin's imposed
mis-interpretation/mischaracterization of my intention. The Admin is
hereby asked to acknowledge and correct this error. Mutual respect and
personal integrity require such necessary correction. Please cc: me.

3. I will have offered enough facts for point #2 and donot wish to
continue a debate on this unless I'm allowed to respond in public. This
IMPLICITLY means, and thus EXPLICITLY stated here, that if I'm banned, a
simple "KyAnh is now banned because he violates Admin request" is fair
and acceptable. A "Due to <characterization>, KyAnh is banned" is unfair
since I'm not allowed to respond to what is potentially another false
characterization and misrepresentation. 

As Vietnamese, I hope we can accord one another the above gesture of
respect, namely, no misrepresentation of one another and, least of all,
in the absence/disallowance of proper representation.

Best wishes,
KyAnh


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Suspension .. ("Ky-Anh D. Phan" , 3/28/97 1:20)
To: vnsa-l@csd.uwm.edu


Hi all,

I've been tied up with personal matters and thus have neither the time
nor opportunity to address this issue or much of anything else.
I'm writing to correct what I deem to be unfortunate misinterpretation
and miscommunication to/from admin.

I understand that this may result from me being banned. Be as it may,
I'm nevertheless convinced of Admin's integrity in acknowledging its
mis-interpretation. I simply abhor misrepresenation, even if benign.

Since this may very well be my last message, I wish to extend my best
wishes to everyone. I wish you all much success and happiness. My _only_
useful and important advice: hug your loved ones everyday :))

The point of this message is for the Admin to recognize its unfortunate
and errand interpretation of my 'intention'. Anything else, to me, is
secondary as I need the above to retain a belief in the integrity of and
thus respect for the admins. Just a _real_ simple acknowledgement would
do, and, for the record, I wish to thank the admins for a wonderful job
at creating and maintaing a most rich and friendly forum.

To the incident under question,

Admins: Did you intentionally send the RFA message to VNSA.
Answered: Yes. I'm on net too long to make such mistake.

The intention here, of course, is to send the message to relevant
audience, for which I deem vnforum and vnsa-l to be. Per admin
communication to the list, that intention was mis-interpreted to be an
intention to introduce politically sensitive materials on vnsa. That's
an incorrect interpretation of my response.

Do I have a sense that RFA is a 'sensitive' topic? Yes, I did. I've read
messages about Vietnamese press condemning RFA as meddling in internal
affairs. Just because the official press so labels an entity, it is the
duty of individuals to find out what that entity is about and arrive at
their own conclusion. My other position is that the government needs to
fight information with information legitimately, not with stigmatization
(but then, that's probably too high of an expectation :)))

My view on RFA, just like that of the official press, is subjective, and
I believe that Ho Chi Minh, in his writings, also railed against
subjectivism ;) My *personal* position is that I don't act on my
subjectivity to filter/dictate information. That may displease the
world, but .. what the hey .. I only need my girlfriend for happiness
:)))) <== an attemtp at humour, ladies and gents :))

 
An-Hai wrote at one time:
====
Anh KyAnh clearly violated VNSA policy with his posting about Radio Free 
Asia.
----

I have no interest contending with the above. Our time are better spent
elsewhere on different matter. Sufficient to note that the above
statement is debatable ;)

====
We contacted him privately about this matter. He said, in effect, 
that he had learned long time ago not to be afraid from controversial 
issues;
----

The above is correct.

====
.. that we should not make a fuss out of it; 
----

I don't recall saying this. I recall presenting my position for
understanding once I understood that this was deemed serious. The
implication is that, despite my _personal_ sense about RFA being
controversial, I do understand that I may get lots of flaks, but .. see
section above .. :)


====
... and that he merely provided some "neutral" information, with good
intention. 
----

The content itself is certainly was neutral, no quote necessary :) The
fact that there's a subjective inkling about its 'sensitive' nature says
nothing nor manipulates nothing in the nature of the content.

====
It was clear that not only he violated VNSA policy, he also didn't
understand the seriousness of the issue, and didn't grasp how much
damage he could have done to VNSA and us the admins with his RFA
posting. 
----

No harm ever intended. If harm is done, it says much more condemnable
things about some other realities, *produced by* the fear of and the
need to suppress information rather than the information itself.

====
This was also not the first time Anh KyAnh's posting violated VNSA
policy. In his very first VNSA message he also said politically
sensitive things; and we was forced to issue an admin message to kill
that thread. 
----

In my first posting, I generically criticized a clearly demonstrated and
historically proven chacteristic in Vietnamese power structures. That is
the tendency to believe in its infallibility and imposition of
what-should-be onto the powerless. 

It's a cultural shortcoming that results in an absence of national
debates on policy, producing less than clear-sighted direction for the
nation and has hurt national progress. This, I believe, is less my
opinion than that of history.

As Vietnamese, I ought to be displeased at such characteristic when it
is maintained and perpetuated .. and well .. I have been and will be :)

If such displeasure is deemed politically incorrect by whatever
unfortunate constraints, I understand but can't abide (guess that's why
I've been away from Vietnam for almost 20 years, was shot at upon my
departure, almost died of dehydration at sea, and labeled as leftist by
the extreme right!)

Now that I've clarified what needs to be clarified, I'm at peace :) 

The points of (1) RFA being so explosive that a reference to it warrants
a suspension, and (2) my follow-up here warranting a ban are decisions I
can live with, and happily so, under present constraints. I'm used to
rough treatment :)) For relief, I usually go home to kick boo-boo and
phi-phi :)) 

I can't stand and the Admin shouldn't live with a mis-interpretation as
manifest cause/pretext for suspension. Nor should misrepresentation
remain an error uncorrected.

Have a wonderful time, everyone.

All the best,
KyAnh

PS. Lest I'm still not clear. I'm asking for a message as simple as
below ;) .. or variation thereof :) All factual, and without unnecessary
personal characterization. 

The Admin had earlier misinterpreted Ky-Anh's private response. Ky-Anh
was suspended on content, not intention. He is now banned for failure to
abide by Admin request and violation of suspended posting rights.