NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/culture/japan/10865

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-16 | 6.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!uwm.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!fconvx.ncifcrf.gov!fcs280b!masuda
From: [e-mail] (Michiaki Masuda)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Subject: In response to Mr. Harkcom (was Re: Japanese exchange student ... )
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:07:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: ncifcrf.BxtGsL.D47
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (C News)
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center
Lines: 124
Nntp-Posting-Host: fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov


   As I posted before, I stopped discussing the exchange student incident
on the net. However, as this message of Mr. Harkcom seems to be more of a
challenge in public against my personality than a comment on the incident
itself, I'd like to take a liberty to respond by spending some bandwidth.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alton Harkcom) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>   (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>
> =}In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alton Harkcom) writes:
> =}>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> =}>   (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
> =}
> =}> =}   Probably, the local police knows only little more than you and I do.
> =}> =}The person who knows best cannot talk any longer.
> =}
> =}>   That's not true.  "One of the people who knows best can no longer
> =}>talk" would have been better.  Or do you feel that since he's the only
> =}>Japanese involved that he's the only relieable witness?
> =}
> =}   Hunh? I was responding to the post that mentioned the mentality of the
> =}Japanese student when he visited Mr. Peairs's house? He is the person who
> =}knew best whether he was understanding Mr. Peairs was aiming at him
> =}with a real gun or a toy gun, how he understood Mr. Peairs's word,
> =}"Freeze!", and why he moved when he was told to freeze.
>
>=============================[article in question]=============================
>From: [e-mail] (Michiaki Masuda)
>Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
>Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
>Date: 5 Nov 92 00:36:41 GMT
>Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center
>Nntp-Posting-Host: fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>>.....
>>>>Since you guys are so eager to hang the guy without a trial, I
>>>>thought it only fair to discuss the aspects you weren't considering.
>
>>>  Wasn't it you that were eager to conclude that the Japanese student
>>>was shot to death deservingly because he appeared to be trying to break in
>>>repeatedly?
>
>>Hattori did try to get in repeatedly. Front door and side door.
>
>   Although my English vocabulary may not be good enough, but it seems
>to me that the word "twice" is more appropriate than "repeatedly" unless
>you intend to give a biased impression.
>
>>Based on the response of the local police who know a lot more about
>>tactics and the incident than you do, my explanation seems much
>>more plausible.
>
>   Probably, the local police knows only little more than you and I do.
>The person who knows best cannot talk any longer.
>
>Michiaki Masuda
>=============================[article in question]=============================
>
>   The comment you were replying to was not refering to Hattori's state
>of mind but to "what happened" in general.

    "Hattori did try to get in repeatedly" might be or might NOT be what
happened. The reason why he went to the side door might not be to "get in" but
just to see what's going on. Mr. Peairs was under impression that some
stranger(s) was trying to get in his house, but he doesn't know what Yoshi
Hattori was thinking at that time.

>  Since you claim that you were
>refering to Hattori's mental state then I apologize for the
>misunderstanding.

   Accepted.

>  Might I also suggest that you be more explicit in your
>comments to avoid such misunderstandings (I tried to read your mind, but by
>the time your article arrived here you were thinking about something else :)

   I doubt that the reason for your misunderstanding is on my side.

> =}   I wonder why you suspected my feeling that way. Is that because I am
> =}Japanese?

>   No, it is because your comments appear to say that Hattori was the one
>who new best what happened.  Even if you were a caucasian I would question
>such an obviously twisted opinion.

   Then, your mentioning Yoshi Hattori's nationality was totally unncessary
for you to make your point.

> =}Or are you somehow trying to label me as a racist by making
> =}whatever biased distortion and deletion that you can make as you did
> =}in another posting?

>   If you can find such a post then please remind me of it as I don't
>recall ever having made "biased distortion and deletion" of any post.
>If you can't find such a post then I expect an apology for your sick
>(and incorrect) accusation...

    If you posted in an attempt to assert that I had been making my comment
in favor of only one side of the incident, that's a biased distortion of the
fact.

    In article <[e-mail]> you cited
a part of my article <[e-mail]> as:

> [other racist bull deleted]

    This is what I meant by "biased deletion." If you want to persuade the
netters that I am racist, let them judge.

    I don't believe that my accucation was sick or incorrect. It was a serious
and sincere one. I don't believe that I owe you any apology.

--Michiaki

P.S. I suppose that this thread could be another factor to worsen the S/N
ratio of s.c.j. Unless you believe that your attempt to convince other
nertters that I am racist is beneficial to s.c.j., you might want to either
stop this thread or reply me by mail. If you post your reply, I'll either
ignore it or reply by mail.