Re: Re: Non - Linux - But good article

This sure is getting exciting.  Personally, I don't mind reading these 
kinds of discussions, but I know several other people on this list do.  
It may be wise to take it off line, but to cc me if you want an 
audience. :-)  Anyone else want to be CCd?

On a serious note... Both of you guys stated in your previous messages 
that you think this thread is inappropriate/not necessary for this kind 
of list, yet you still posted.  Is it acceptable to continue to post 
off-topic in order to get in the last word?  Come on.....

Chris

Richard Ford wrote:

>G'Day John,
>
>I hope that you have read all the posts as I am going to save the list a
>rehash.
>
>In response to your argument.  I would suggest that you understand the
>concept of 'scope'.  It is a very child like form of debate to say "Well
>it also happens over there and here and there."
>
>To put a fine point on it.  In the context of my already admitted sloppy
>semantics, my generalisation (as it was) was relating to China.  Of
>course I was not going to comment on other countries mentioned as I have
>not lived there.
>
>I will respond the rest of your comments (briefly) inline:
>
>
>  
>
>>Second, the issue at hand.  Your initial comments, in response to this article,
>>were quite uniformly negative, reflecting on the Chinese culture as a whole. 
>>Let's see -- claims that the emphasis on "face" leads to "rotten apples"; and
>>comments about the "Chinese penchant for short term planning".
>>    
>>
>
>No need to get upset.  If you want me to post an article (or 10) on some
>positive things about China I will gladly oblige.  Trust me, why would I
>live here if the scales weren't tipped in way that I found to be
>enjoyable?
>
>You can't always pull the curtains over or flick the channel because you
>dislike the scenery or the commentary.  "Head in the sand" is not the
>way to deal with negative criticism.
>
>Scope.  I presented one issue.  I was not about to start an almanac of
>debate topics.
>
><SNIP>
>
>  
>
>>Let's ignore your proven propensity (in this post, and in many others) to try to
>>intimidate others through a superior vocabulary and writing style (while
>>ignoring the real substance of the argument).
>>    
>>
>
>You say more about yourself by that statement than you do the
>implication that you are trying to deliver.
>
>  
>
>>not a simplistic term that can be used to describe any specific behavior; it is
>>rather an incredibly complex concept, spanning a wide range of beliefs,
>>attitudes, and behaviors.  Anyone trying to make such a broad, generalized
>>statement about 'face' only reveals their ignorance on the subject (in my
>>    
>>
><SNIP>
>
>Read my first paragraph again, hint, scope.
>
>
>  
>
>>* "and how it often leads to nice exteriors and poor interiors.  'Rotten Apples'
>>if you will." -- This is full of SO MANY generalizations that it is hard to
>>figure out where to start.  First, 'rotten apples' exist in EVERY country and
>>culture; trying to blame 'face' for this requires a simplicity (perhaps 'lack'
>>would be a better word) of thought which belies the eloquence of some of your
>>other posts.  
>>    
>>
>
>Great example of mental clout there John.  "I know I am fat - but so is
>that person there!"
>
>Great logic!
>
>  
>
>>Second, the apparently implicit assumption that many Chinese suffer from this
>>affliction -- that since it "often leads" to 'rotten apples', it is therefore an
>>implicit conclusion that a large number of Chinese are 'rotten apples.  Again, a
>>claim ENTIRELY unsubstantiated by ANY facts or information.  But hey -- let's
>>just take Richard's word for it.
>>    
>>
>
>
>It was neither implicit or explicit.  It was an factual observation that
>often exteriors are more important than interiors.  I challenge you to
>refute the validity of my statement.  How many constructions projects
>have you had to oversee?  Please feel free to come out to the campus of
>my new school if you ever need a touch up on "reality".
>
>But because you are so sensitive to "Balanced Arguments".  We can then
>both go to Guo Mao and Marvel at the standard of construction there.  As
>I would hate to seem to come across as some evil fact twister.
>
>  
>
>>Third, the complete failure to discuss the POSITIVE aspects of face.  Face does
>>NOT implicitly or inevitably lead to corruption or rotten apples.  In fact, in
>>    
>>
>
><SNIP>
>
>Yes John.  In the future whenever I have a bad thing to say about
>anything, including Microsoft, Global Warming and indeed nuclear
>proliferation, I will be sure to include some token POSITIVE arguments
>to placate your frazzled sensibilities.
>
>  
>
>>focus of this article), they are FOLLOWING the lead of the West -- indicating
>>that such a "penchant" for "short term planning" was in fact inherited/adopted
>>    
>>
><SNIP>
>
>Actually no.  Read the article again and understand it this time.
>
>  
>
>>But in regards to the general Chinese populace, I have met quite a significant
>>number of Chinese who in fact demonstrate a very strong predilection towards
>>long-term planning and strategizing.  Of course, as might be expected, we again
>>have no comments from you on this aspect of the argument.
>>    
>>
><SNIP>
>
>Hint, scope.
>
>  
>
>>* "which for me at least I have seen massive changes in the past 4 years" --
>>I've seen even more massive changes in the past 10 years (which demonstrate in
>>part the difficulty of long term planning, but that was part of the previous
>>argument).  So if your 4 years of experience make you some sort of 'expert' (as
>>you seem to be implying), then that makes me two and a half times MORE 'expert'
>>than you.
>>    
>>
>
>Again, no tacit implications here by myself.  If you feel that stating
>time is indeed important as you obviously do with respect to credibility
>(as opposed to my context of, actuality), relish in it.  Hope your next
>10 years are as uniformly positive as the past 10. 
>
>  
>
>>Of course, I'd tend to focus on CONTENT more than LENGTH OF STAY in determining
>>one's authority on such a subject; but then, you seem rather lacking in BOTH
>>categories.
>>    
>>
>
>;-)
>
>Keep snuggling that head into the sand John.  Your big break may come
>one day.
>
>  
>
>>Does that mean that I think that China will never experience such a problem? 
>>No...in fact, I'm sure that China IS going to face some serious crises in the
>>future.  But then, so has EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET at one time or
>>another.  So again, it seems rather vain and pointless to blame this on such a
>>limited view of Chinese culture.
>>    
>>
>
>Oh here we go about the other countries again.
>
>Which is it John?  A discussion on China or on global trends?
>
>Or are your personal short comings all justifiable because so many other
>people share those failings also?
>
>Seems for one, you'd be happier if people used more simple and less
>complex prose?
>
>>From where I come from, if you have an issue with someone writing better
>than you, you don't mock them for it, you learn how to do it yourself
>better.
>
>Then again, "EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET" has bad writers, so that
>makes it OK.
>
>  
>
>>CONCLUSION -- Yes, China has significant problems which need to be addressed. 
>>In fact, my work focuses almost exclusively on trying to reconcile those
>>differences.  However, my work focuses on helping BOTH sides -- Western AND
>>Chinese -- move towards a more common middle ground.  And that involves change
>>not only on the Chinese side, but also on the foreign side.  
>>    
>>
>
>Are we talking about China and my posts or you John?  Are we suffering
>from just a tad of insecurity?
>
>I would have thought that such a venerable veteran of China such as
>yourself would not have been so incited by my throw away sentences?
>
>What's your real agenda John?
>
>  
>
>>Of course, any such discussion requires comprehensive knowledge of the issues
>>being discussed; and a willingness to look at these issues from a fairly neutral
>>perspective.  
>>
>>You, on the other hand, sound like the stereotypical 'foreigner' who comes to
>>China for a few years, has some problems, identifies superficial causes, and
>>then makes sweeping generalizations and conclusions which have little merit
>>outside of the rather constricted confines of their own neural networks.
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, I am an evil NEW foreigner that has come to spoil China for all the
>veterans like yourself.  I do nasty things like get involved in
>community groups and events, organise city wide sporting comps, donate
>my time to good causes and help friends out whenever I can.  One could
>say that I participate and get involved.
>
>I would politely request that you do not entertain this topic anymore. 
>I care not for the insecure ramblings of a failed old China escapee who
>is suffering from a rather acute case of "China Elitism" rolled up with
>a dash of self hate.
>
>Also worthy of note, is that I know Fred and have done so for some
>time.  At the end of the day, we had a disagreement, we both got hot, we
>both thrashed it out, cooled down and got over it.  You John, I would
>not know you for any other non-achiever I would pass on the street.
>
>If you want to feel better about yourself, try working on some of your
>flaws instead of framing my comments in a light that illuminates you to
>whatever lofty unfulfilled ideal you have (or had) of yourself.
>
>Best of Luck with it all!
>
>Cheers,
>Richard.
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>blug-general list
>[email protected]
>http://list.beijinglug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/blug-general
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
blug-general list
[email protected]
http://list.beijinglug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/blug-general