The proposed tour of Chinese Treasures in The US
Alan M Kang
proposal to lend US several items of our museum treasures. An opinion I
read somewhere asks whether any foreign government would consent to lending
us say, the Mona Lisa? Why should we ingratiate and belittle ourselves to win
meaningless favours from a country sho doesn't even allow President Lee to
land for a visit?
Tung-Chiang Yang
the Ching dynasty and have exhibitions in Taiwan, if both ROC and PRC
offered no funding for the exhibition, then the guy organizing this
could suffer a big loss, and nobody else dare to have such an exhibition
again.
This might be a good idea to stop the exhibition tour which further links
Taiwan and Mainland.
======================================
Boulder912 (bould...@aol.com) wrote:
> And the most ridiculous thing is that Taiwan has paid millions of US
> dollars to
> the museums in the US to exhibit those most invaluable Chinese treasures.
> And those museums will sell tickets to American people to make profits.
> There is a Chinese idiom, "Yuan Da Tou" for this scandal.
> Shame!
>
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Jan 10, 1996
Szu-yuan Huang
France does not have formal diplomatic relationship with Taiwan as well, but
she recently sent a whole collection of paintings to Taipei for exhibit. I
hope that will help you calm down a bit.
--
Mike Huang
===============================================================================
My employer has nothing to do with what I said above; I do.
Danny Chi
: An opinion I
: read somewhere asks whether any foreign government would consent to lending
: us say, the Mona Lisa?
Japan will. Japan will lend Mona Lisa to us.
Just kidding.
: Why should we ingratiate and belittle ourselves to win
: meaningless favours from a country sho doesn't even allow President Lee to
: land for a visit?
Back to the subject. I don't think it's a good idea to drag politics into
this matter. The National Palace Museum may have made some rough decisions
on the selection of art works to show but basically, I support this tour.
I think this art exhibition will let the US people understand more about
our culture. We, not only are able to manufacture many mordern fine goods,
but also a country of considerable history.
My prediction is that this exhibition tour will be a big success and we
will win the respect of the US people.
-- Danny Chi
Chang-Ping Lee
Danny Chi <dan...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Back to the subject. I don't think it's a good idea to drag politics into
>this matter. The National Palace Museum may have made some rough decisions
>on the selection of art works to show but basically, I support this tour.
I am totally against this tour.
1. The risk is too high. These priceless antique are too
fragile to move abroad. No purpose, be it political or
cultural, is worth the risk.
2. ROC government has too pay for it. !@#$%^&
Since ROC has the financial power, I support the idea
that we should help in cultural activities or give
humanitarian aid to those in need. But, to do so with
the antique seems to be lacking respect to those
national treasure and the great masters that created
them.
>I think this art exhibition will let the US people understand more about
>our culture. We, not only are able to manufacture many mordern fine goods,
>but also a country of considerable history.
Confucius said, I wouldn't inspire before a person shows
his interest. If the US public is interested enough, there
is no need to finance the tour.
>My prediction is that this exhibition tour will be a big success and we
>will win the respect of the US people.
Even so, what if one piece (just one piece) gets damaged?
Why not use duplicate? Why take the risk?
Chang, crying for the great masters that gave glory to the nation.
Tung-Chiang Yang
agency -- it is different from the Smithsonian museums in DC. Don't
relate it with the US Federal government, or even New York State government.
Secondly, I am indeed concerned about the safety issue about shipping
these items out of Taiwan. However, I am wondering why people did not
protest about this in the past. The plan of shipping the artworks of
National Palace Museum overseas has been discussed for some time, and it
was not protested seriously only until recently.
At first people worried what if PRC claimed these artwork belonged to it
instead of ROC, in case they were shipped overseas. As far as I know,
nobody protested. Later I read newspapers that Metropolitan Museum of
Art and National Palace Museum have reached some agreement and they have
discussed about the details, like how to check if there was any defects
in the shipping process, and still nobody protested. O.K. Now they are
going to be boxed and shipped, and all of a sudden, many people protest
about that.
In Taiwan around elections, things can be easily heated up.
================================================
Alan M Kang (al...@icon.co.za) wrote:
> I read with mixed feelings (mostly disgust and abhorrence) about the recent
> proposal to lend US several items of our museum treasures. An opinion I
> read somewhere asks whether any foreign government would consent to lending
> us say, the Mona Lisa? Why should we ingratiate and belittle ourselves to win
> meaningless favours from a country sho doesn't even allow President Lee to
> land for a visit?
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Jan 9, 1996
Boulder912
>
>When PRC allowed some of the carving work for soldiers and horses during
>the Ching dynasty and have exhibitions in Taiwan, if both ROC and PRC
>offered no funding for the exhibition, then the guy organizing this
>could suffer a big loss, and nobody else dare to have such an exhibition
>again.
>
>This might be a good idea to stop the exhibition tour which further links
>Taiwan and Mainland.
Like you said, both sides funded for the exhibition. Did the USA fund
for the coming Chinese artwork tour from Taiwan?
Also the arrangement between Taiwan and mainland China should be
different from ROC and USA due to
1. mainland China is not a foreign nation to Taiwan, not yet.
2. There is a cultural exchange agreement between Taiwan Strait. Both
sides made commitment to assist this type of cultural exchange events.
If American museums are interested in showing our artworks, they should
go to their sponsors for funding or at least there should be an agreement
between museums so that American museums will send their stuff to Taiwan
and fund their tour. But is there any such agreement? If not, dont you
think we are "Yuan Da Tou"? We offer best artworks and pay for the
expense
and worry their safety, the museums profits from selling tickets.
Purpose?
Chang-Ping Lee
Danny,
I know your good intention, but the two points I raised in my
last post still remain. In addition, I would like to give two
more here.
1. I have visited probably 20 or more museums in the US. My
observation is that they already have many Chinese antique,
including chop-off Buddha head, cut-off and then pieced
together Dun Huang stone painting, silk painting, copper
tools from Chou and Sun dynasties, etc. IMHO, these are
quite enough to serve the purpose you are talking about.
2. There are much better ways to serve the purpose you are
talking about. For example, print lots of duplicate and
sell them at cost to the US public. Another example, if
the tour is still desired, use duplicate.
Chang
In article <dannychD...@netcom.com>,
Danny Chi <dan...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Chang-Ping Lee (c...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>
>: I am totally against this tour.
>
>I am still for it. Read on.
>
>: Confucius said, I wouldn't inspire before a person shows
>: his interest. If the US public is interested enough, there
>: is no need to finance the tour.
>
>Sigh! Most "westerns" were taught that human culture started in Egypt
>and then continued on the Europe continent. Chinese culture is great
>but they don't know too much about it.
>
>Compared with our national Palace Museum's treasure artworks (Sung, Yuan),
>Mona Lisa (Louvre, Paris), painted by LEONARDO DA VINCI between 1503 and
>1505, is just a small sister.
>
>For example, grand master painters Ma Yuan (1190-1225), and Xia Gui,
>founders of the so-called Ma-Xia school of landscape painting, are
>credited with bringing the lyrical mode of Song landscape art to its
>culmination during the Southern Song period (1127-1279). Guo Xi's
>large-scale hanging scroll, Early Spring (1072) is also regarded
>as a masterpiece of monumental landscape art. I believe
>these works are all included in this exhibition tour.
>
>
>: Even so, what if one piece (just one piece) gets damaged?
>: Why not use duplicate? Why take the risk?
>
>I have no problem with this suggestion. The National Palace Museum
>should hold a fair hearing on this matter from experts.
>
>
>: Chang, crying for the great masters that gave glory to the nation.
>
>These priceless artworks belong to not only the Chinese people but
>all the human beings. Therefore, we should try our best to protect
>them so that more people can appreciate them in the future.
>
>
>-- Danny Chi
>
Danny Chi
Boulder912
>
>Now let's turn to a serious consideration assuming we are Mr. CHIANG,
>Kai-shek, in the year of 1948-1949. At that time, China was in a civil
>war, and the navigation skills and instruments could not match the
current
>ones. If we are CKS, do we want to ship the artworks from Beijing
>National Palace Museum to Taipei? There is no doubt that the risk of
>this shipping far exceeds the planned one across the Pacific today.
>
>I am interested to know how Chiang made such a decision. Maybe Uncle
>Danny can help :)
Chinese artworks were shipped out of Beijing during WWII to prevent them
falling into Japanese hands and again shipped out of mainland China to
prevent them falling into CCP's hands. Those shippings were necessary
based on the experience. For example, during the boxer rebellion, many
Chinese treaures in Beijing were burn into ashes by foreign troops.
Also many artworks were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution. You
should thanks CKS for the shippings. ;)
Since you are also concerned about the safety of those treasures then
Chang's concerns stand, he opposes we pay millions but also worry
their safety, is it worthy?
Now here is a little history, the "bones of Peking man" were lost when
shipping to the US by US warships during WWII.
Remember those are the masterpieces of masterpieces and quantity is 27
not a few and last collection of Wang Si-Zi's work is one of them loaded
on one Air Cargo... We dont have to oppose all the artwork tours but you
need
to know what have been sent out.
Has any nation allowed their best collections out of country once?
If foreigners really appreciate Chinese artworks they should go to Taiwan
as they go to Paris for Mona Lisa.
By the way, TC can I borrow your PC and you pay for the shipping cost
and maintenace so that I can rent it out I promise I will tell everybody
how
good your PC is. ;)
Danny Chi
:
: If American museums are interested in showing our artworks, they should
: between museums so that American museums will send their stuff to Taiwan
: and fund their tour. But is there any such agreement?
Good idea. It's still NOT too late to make such a deal with the
four American museums.
If not, dont you
: think we are "Yuan Da Tou"? We offer best artworks and pay for the
: expense
: and worry their safety, the museums profits from selling tickets.
: Purpose?
Hard to say. "Giving favors to others" may not always be classified as
"Yuan Da Tou". In this case, we should also count the value of its return
that more Americans will know about Taiwan and the Chinese culture.
Taiwan will pay about $8,000,000 for this exhibition trip. At the same time,
you know how much ROC had recently paid to a tiny Africa country so that
she said good-bye to PRC? The (unofficial) figure is $150,000,000.
-- Danny Chi
Danny Chi
: Tung-chiang Yang (tcy...@blizzard.seas.ucla.edu) wrote:
: The Gallery Schedule says:
: "In spite of severe fiscal restraints at all levels of government, the
: City has sustained support that permits the Museum to keep the vast
: majority of its galleries open at all times....."
: I believe Metropolitan Museum of Art is funded significantly by New York
: City government :)
The New York city provides heat, power and portion of the costs of the
maintenance and security for the collections. The collections and other
costs are supported by a group of trustees.
It is a GREAT museum of world art. If I lived in New York, I could have
spent most of my spare time there instead of here. ;-)
-- Danny Chi, a musem lover.
Boulder912
>
>The discussions about exhibitions of these priceless artworks began some
>time ago, probably at least one year. Even several months ago there was
>a "preparatory exhibition" in National Palace Museum which attacted a lot
>of people. Some people even took flights from Kaohsiung to Taipei to
>view the exhibitions. Where were the people who protest now?
Ordinary people dont necessarily understand the importance of those 27
pieces of artworks. After the further discussions, people started to be
aware of it. Most of those 27 pieces are Chinese paintings and
caligrapgy back to the Soong dynasty, they are already very fragile
and the color has much faded. Can they endure 4 times of packing and
unpacking and shipping city to city throughout US tours?
>If Mr. CHING, Shiao-yi, the director of National Palace Museum told the
>public that only some minor artworks will be sent to the US for
>exhibition while in fact the important ones will be sent abroad instead,
>then his lie should cost him and he should step down right away.
>However, if people were aware of the exhibited items and remain silent
>until the Metropolitan Museum of Art sent staffs to Taiwan, ready for
>the shipping and packaging process, it just tell the US and also the
>world a message:
>
>"Don't trust what Taiwan says as it can be changed at the last minute".
Spain and Eygpt all cancelled their oversea exhibitions before. The
true museum lovers can understand the feelings of Taiwan people. Also,
a public hearing by the experts can be held to re-examine which item
should stay and which item can leave. There may not be necessary to
cancel the scheduled exhibition but the contents of the exhibition.
Finding the substitutes (not duplicates) is also another alternative.
Also how many Amercians understand, say, Chinese caligraphy? Chinese
caligraphy needs people know Chinese characters in order to "begin" to
appreciate. How many Americans can read Chinese, then why sending
Wang Si-Zi's work out but not those less important ones?
Boulder912
>
>Yang,
>
>This is a very interesting and good question. I have read a couple books
on
>the history of the Palace Museum and like to talk about it in another
thread.
>
>Guess what would LTH take with him *if* he were forced to retreat from
Taiwan
>to Lan2 Yu3.
>
>-- Danny Chi
Hau Bo-Tseung and golf course. ;)
Boulder912
>
>Hard to say. "Giving favors to others" may not always be classified as
>"Yuan Da Tou". In this case, we should also count the value of its return
>that more Americans will know about Taiwan and the Chinese culture.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Then like Chang said, the Chinese treasures in American museums have
served the purpose. Metropolitan Museum in NYC has also some of the
best Chinese paintings.
We dont have to oppose every tour but which item allow to leave should
be re-examined. Also will those items serve the purpose? For example,
I just dont see why sending out Soong paintings or Wang Si-Zi's
caligraphy.
They are already very fragile and the colors have much faded. And how
many Americans can indeed appreciate them? Do we need Wang's work to
"educate" Americans? Or it is just our own "self-indulge" because a
few more Americans like it?
Like I said, if foreigners want to see the best Chinese artworks, go to
Taiwan as they go to France for Mona Lisa. Because French government
does not allow Mona Lisa go abroad.
>Taiwan will pay about $8,000,000 for this exhibition trip. At the same
time,
>you know how much ROC had recently paid to a tiny Africa country so that
>she said good-bye to PRC? The (unofficial) figure is $150,000,000.
>
>-- Danny Chi
So? At least we got one more recognition without worrying the safety
of those priceless artworks which are worth
$150000000000000000000000000000000...
I would say. ;)
Boulder912
>
>I checked the homepage for Metropolitan Museum of Art. Boulder912
>said the museum took admission money from its guests and also takes
>money from ROC, but the page says:
>
>"Admission: Free to Members and children under 12 with an adult.
> $7 suggested for adults, $3.50 for students and senior
> citizens, includes Main Building and the Cloisters on
> the same day."
>I did not visit there before :( I think the admission is not mandatory.
>:)
Yes, the admission is not mandatory but not free either therefore
Metropolitan do take admission money from its guests. For this
coming Chinese artwork tour, Metropolitan alone accepted about
3 millions US dollars fund from ROC.
Danny Chi
I totally agree with you on the second point.
I have also visited many many museums in the US. In my opinion, their Chinese
art exhibition is trivial compared with that of the National Palace Museum's.
In New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, I have seen a Guo Xi's (1050)
painting "trees against a flat vista". In this planned trip, the National
Palace Museum will exhibit Fan Kuan' (960) monumental hanging scroll
entitled "Travelling Among the Streams and Mountains". This is among the
FIRST SURVIVING Chinese masterpieces.
-- Danny Chi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Chang-Ping Lee (c...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: Danny,
: I know your good intention, but the two points I raised in my
: last post still remain. In addition, I would like to give two
: more here.
: 1. I have visited probably 20 or more museums in the US. My
: observation is that they already have many Chinese antique,
: including chop-off Buddha head, cut-off and then pieced
: together Dun Huang stone painting, silk painting, copper
: tools from Chou and Sun dynasties, etc. IMHO, these are
: quite enough to serve the purpose you are talking about.
: 2. There are much better ways to serve the purpose you are
: talking about. For example, print lots of duplicate and
: sell them at cost to the US public. Another example, if
: the tour is still desired, use duplicate.
: Chang
: In article <dannychD...@netcom.com>,
: Danny Chi <dan...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >Chang-Ping Lee (c...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: >
: >: I am totally against this tour.
: >
: >I am still for it. Read on.
: >
: >: Confucius said, I wouldn't inspire before a person shows
: >: his interest. If the US public is interested enough, there
: >: is no need to finance the tour.
: >
: >Sigh! Most "westerns" were taught that human culture started in Egypt
: >and then continued on the Europe continent. Chinese culture is great
: >but they don't know too much about it.
: >
: >Compared with our national Palace Museum's treasure artworks (Sung, Yuan),
: >Mona Lisa (Louvre, Paris), painted by LEONARDO DA VINCI between 1503 and
: >1505, is just a small sister.
: >
: >For example, grand master painters Ma Yuan (1190-1225), and Xia Gui,
: >founders of the so-called Ma-Xia school of landscape painting, are
: >credited with bringing the lyrical mode of Song landscape art to its
: >culmination during the Southern Song period (1127-1279). Guo Xi's
: >large-scale hanging scroll, Early Spring (1072) is also regarded
: >as a masterpiece of monumental landscape art. I believe
: >
Tung-Chiang Yang
> Like you said, both sides funded for the exhibition. Did the USA fund
> for the coming Chinese artwork tour from Taiwan?
I think so. Today ( Jan. 12, 1996 ) World Journal report had a list
about who funded how much.
> Also the arrangement between Taiwan and mainland China should be
> different from ROC and USA due to
> 1. mainland China is not a foreign nation to Taiwan, not yet.
> 2. There is a cultural exchange agreement between Taiwan Strait. Both
> sides made commitment to assist this type of cultural exchange events.
>
> If American museums are interested in showing our artworks, they should
> go to their sponsors for funding or at least there should be an agreement
> between museums so that American museums will send their stuff to Taiwan
> and fund their tour. But is there any such agreement? If not, dont you
> think we are "Yuan Da Tou"? We offer best artworks and pay for the
> expense
> and worry their safety, the museums profits from selling tickets.
> Purpose?
Metropolitan Museum of Art people did say ( in the report I mentioned )
they are willing to provide some of their collections for exhibitions in
National Palace Museum. Don't forget that National Palace Museum,
Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, Louvre in France and
British Museum are ranked the top four museums in the world.
Of course, according to the report, these planned items ARE Chinese
caligraphies. Some of them might be legally purchased by the museum
while some others might be the robbery collection from the West when
China was weak, but the museum had its sincerity, don't you think so?
Lilian Chung's post showed that Metropolitan Museum of Art's funding does
not come from all of the ticket sales. Don't keep emphasizing that the
NYC museum just want to make money out of ROC's expense.
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Jan 12, 1996
Tung-Chiang Yang
> Ordinary people dont necessarily understand the importance of those 27
> pieces of artworks. After the further discussions, people started to be
> aware of it. Most of those 27 pieces are Chinese paintings and
> caligrapgy back to the Soong dynasty, they are already very fragile
> and the color has much faded. Can they endure 4 times of packing and
> unpacking and shipping city to city throughout US tours?
Thanks for your information. It will be interesting that ordinary people
do not realize the importance of those 27 pieces of artworks for 4 years,
and all of a sudeen, some lightning stroke on them and they realize it.
( P.S. On World Journal, Jan. 12, 1996, Los Angeles edition, an
interview reported that Metropolitan Museum of Art had this plan
four years ago. Of course, the actual details with National
Palace Museum about the exhibition should be less than four years,
but let me use 4 here )
According to the report in World Journal, even if these artworks are not
shipped out of Taiwan, every time they are taken from the depot and ready
for display, they will be folded and unfolded once. Hmmm, for their
safety we should seal them and never put them on exhibition again.
> Spain and Eygpt all cancelled their oversea exhibitions before. The
> true museum lovers can understand the feelings of Taiwan people. Also,
> a public hearing by the experts can be held to re-examine which item
> should stay and which item can leave. There may not be necessary to
> cancel the scheduled exhibition but the contents of the exhibition.
> Finding the substitutes (not duplicates) is also another alternative.
I did not know Spain and Egypt did this until today I read the report in
World Journal. Spain did it for the reason "the regime is changed and
the new regime does not want to fulfill the promise set by the former
one". The report did not say the reason for Egypt. Maybe like the one
ROC has today. But I am wondering if Egypt also withdrew its promise at
the last minute.
> Also how many Amercians understand, say, Chinese caligraphy? Chinese
> caligraphy needs people know Chinese characters in order to "begin" to
> appreciate. How many Americans can read Chinese, then why sending
> Wang Si-Zi's work out but not those less important ones?
You do have a point :) I guess we only need to send a 10-year-old
elementary pupil to the US and show them what "Chinese caligraphy" is.
You see, in this way ROC risk nothing, the pupil is happy ( for having a
chance to go to Disney ) and the Americans get a good lesson about
Chinese caligraphy.
Tung-Chiang Yang
the Museum gets money from the guests and we should not be "Yuan Da Tou".
Here I would like to translate a paragraph of the report on page B10,
January 12, 1996 ( Friday ) from World Journal:
......
Currently Taiwan and the US share the $6,200,000 expense required by the
exhibition. On the US part, National Foundation for Humanity from the
federal government contributes $500,000, Luce Foundation and Starr
Foundation contribute $500,000 each. Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation in the
US contributes $50,000, and the Regents of Metropolitan Museum of Art
contribute $1,600,000.
......
On the US part, the Americans contribute $3,150,000, which is more than
half of the expense $6,200,000. If you want to exclude the Chiang
Ching-kuo Foundation and count it as the ROC side, then both ROC and the
US exactly share the cost half and half.
I would like to know if you still feel you are a "Yuan Da Tou". If you
do, I would recommend you give up AoL first :)
This message is posted and mailed. Personally I feel Lee's concern about
the risk in the shipping and packaging process should be the only thing
we need to worry about. Other factors like "Yuan Da Tou", or "they have
enough artworks already" is not an issue.
========================================================
Boulder912 (bould...@aol.com) wrote:
> Yes, the admission is not mandatory but not free either therefore
> Metropolitan do take admission money from its guests. For this
> coming Chinese artwork tour, Metropolitan alone accepted about
> 3 millions US dollars fund from ROC.
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Jan 13, 1996
Boulder912
>
>All right. You keep emphasizing that ROC pays for this exhibition while
>the Museum gets money from the guests and we should not be "Yuan Da Tou".
>Here I would like to translate a paragraph of the report on page B10,
>January 12, 1996 ( Friday ) from World Journal:
>
>......
>Currently Taiwan and the US share the $6,200,000 expense required by the
>exhibition. On the US part, National Foundation for Humanity from the
>federal government contributes $500,000, Luce Foundation and Starr
>Foundation contribute $500,000 each. Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation in the
>US contributes $50,000, and the Regents of Metropolitan Museum of Art
>contribute $1,600,000.
>......
>
>On the US part, the Americans contribute $3,150,000, which is more than
>half of the expense $6,200,000. If you want to exclude the Chiang
>Ching-kuo Foundation and count it as the ROC side, then both ROC and the
>US exactly share the cost half and half.
Then what did Taiwan get from this deal? Is this mutual benefits? For
example, did American museums promise to send their stuff to Taiwan and
fund their tour too?
Any comments?
>I would like to know if you still feel you are a "Yuan Da Tou". If you
>do, I would recommend you give up AoL first :)
I dont feel I am but ROC is a "Yuan Da Tou". Gee, I only have to pay an
admission to see Wang Si-Zi's work at the museum. It saves me $1000
airfare to Taiwan. Nice. ;)
I use AOL's service, of course I should pay them as I pay for my
electricity bill.
If TC Yang or ROC is willing to pay my AOL or other bills, even just
half of them, I would be more than happy to let them do it. ;)
>This message is posted and mailed.
So I should be allowed to post my reply on SCT.
>Personally I feel Lee's concern about
>the risk in the shipping and packaging process should be the only thing
>we need to worry about. Other factors like "Yuan Da Tou", or "they have
>enough artworks already" is not an issue.
Your concern about keeping promise is not an issue as I stated in other
post.
As for the "Yuan Da Tou", if you think giving away the money and getting
nothing back and in the meantime, put those 27 fragile artworks at risk
is really nothing to you, well, what can I say? After all, the lost of
the Chinese treasures is not the first time, "bones of Peking man" were
lost when sending to the USA by US warships during WWII. BTW, TC Yang,
do you know if the US government paid for the lost?
Tung-Chiang Yang
> The lightning stroke on them is due to the detailed reports and
> discussions by media. Use Watergate scandal as an example, American
> people did not know how serious it was at the beginning until the
> extensive reports and discussions by media, finally they were aware
> of it.
Yes, people in Taiwan received details reports :) How many of them know
the US government and civilian foundations also contribute part of the
expense?
> When did you know all those details? You also read them from World
> Journal, right? ;)
Hmmm, also the online news.
> BTW, total artworks for this tour are 475 pieces and 27 pieces in
> dispute are only 6%.
Thanks for this information.
> Then why did the Ministry of Education hold its first review meeting by
> experts for this artwork tour yesterday (January 13, 1996)? What if the
> experts recommend some of pieces should stay home? Let me emphasize here
> that this is the FIRST meeting just held yesterday which is only two
> months
> away from exhibit at Metropolitan Museum this March. Then how can you
> blame ordinary people not aware of the details.
Since so many people protest, if MOE did not hold any public hearing, I
don't know what the minister is doing and he is going to be grilled by
the Legislators for sure.
Do you imply that people become aware of the exhibition from the MOE
review meeting? People started to protest much earlier than the review
meeting. Which means they learn their stories from some other sources.
> BTW, your concern about the promise is not the case here.
Show us what the case should be :)
> Like I said, it is not just folding and unfolding but packing and
> unpacking
> and shiping from one city to another city throughout the US. And these 27
> pieces are only shown in the Natioanl Palace Museum under very restricted
> rules and less frequency as other items. And I never said it should be
> locked up in the warehouse for good as you suggested here.
Well, I did not suggest that. One of the interviewers for the report
on Jan. 12, 1996 World Journal said that National Palace Museum should
not be a big depot.
> Like I said, it does not have to withdraw the promise but review those
> 27 pieces to see which item can go or to find the substitutes ...
> And even Minister of Education also said yesterday that the agreement
> with Metropolitan museum did not say those 27 pieces artworks must be
> included.
> Any comments?
As the report said, Metropolitan Museum and Art will never exhibit
imitations, and so is National Palace Museum.
MOE now is trying to find excuses, just like Vice-Premier Hsu said
earlier "the President does not have to approve the resignation from the
Premier" :)
> You do know how to create an idea. ;) Of course, I wont say it is a
> bad idea. I want to go to Disney too. ;)
> Remember I did not say that any Chinese caligraphy work should not go
> abroad
> but only said why send Wang Si-Zi's work (which is already fragile and
> the last piece of his works) to those can not even read Chinese. Purpose?
>
> Can we find a substitute and can still serve for those very few Americans
> who can read Chinese and appreciate Chinese caligraphy?
One question. Do you think Wang Si-zi's caligraphy should belong to
Wang's offsprings instead of being viewed as a national treasure? Do
you think his offsprings should request exhibitions of his
grand^n father's caligraphy with imitations? This question actually
asked you if we should draw the line between ROC/US or Wang/not Wangs.
Tung-Chiang Yang
> Then what did Taiwan get from this deal? Is this mutual benefits? For
> example, did American museums promise to send their stuff to Taiwan and
> fund their tour too?
> Any comments?
Yes, people from Metropolitan Museum of Art said they would be willing
to exchange similar items for exhibitions in National Palace Museum.
Of course, if New York citizens protest, they might have to cancel the
plan :)
Next time if National Palace Museum in Beijing and that in Taipei want to
have some exchange exhibition, ROCers can still protest on that. You
see, Beijing people cannot protest and that is an advantage for people
in Taiwan.
> I dont feel I am but ROC is a "Yuan Da Tou". Gee, I only have to pay an
> admission to see Wang Si-Zi's work at the museum. It saves me $1000
> airfare to Taiwan. Nice. ;)
That is exactly the point. Yes, people admiring Chinese caligraphy
should go to Taiwan to see with their own eyes, but if the caligraphy
can be exhibited in New York, people in the US can save the time and
money to appreciate Chinese culture better. This means more people will
appreciate the Chinese culture.
Do you think all museum goers are rich? How many young students can
afford the time and the airfare?
> I use AOL's service, of course I should pay them as I pay for my
> electricity bill.
> If TC Yang or ROC is willing to pay my AOL or other bills, even just
> half of them, I would be more than happy to let them do it. ;)
I would advise you use a freenet. Read "alt.aol-sucks" and you will
know why AoLers are usually laughed by other people. This part deviates
from the subject and further statements along this like will be ignored.
> >This message is posted and mailed.
> So I should be allowed to post my reply on SCT.
You bet.
> Your concern about keeping promise is not an issue as I stated in other
> post.
> As for the "Yuan Da Tou", if you think giving away the money and getting
> nothing back and in the meantime, put those 27 fragile artworks at risk
> is really nothing to you, well, what can I say? After all, the lost of
> the Chinese treasures is not the first time, "bones of Peking man" were
> lost when sending to the USA by US warships during WWII. BTW, TC Yang,
> do you know if the US government paid for the lost?
Getting nothing back? More people appreciate the Chinese culture and
that is what ROC got, and actually that is what China and Chinese got.
Just like Danny said, I believe "bones of Peking man" belongs to the
whole human race, not just Chinese. China just happened to be the
keeper.
I don't know much about the Peking bone history. But I know definitely
no one will get any compensation if a Japanese soldier invading Peking
used the bones as toys and then threw them into the trashcan.
During WWII when the plan for shipping the bones showed up ( I don't know if
the US requested that or ROC requested that first ), the US should say
"oh, no. It is your business. China owns the bones, not the US. If
I promise to ship and keep the bones, then I will be held responsible.
That is not funny. Please keep it with yourself".
Danny Chi
clubs and a Bible. He will build a golf field in Lan2 Yu3.
-- Danny Chi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Boulder912 (bould...@aol.com) wrote:
Boulder912
>
>My question is just "why can't these people protest earlier when the
>problem could be solved more easily, but choose to protest in the last
>minute?"
As an ordinary person, I did not know those 27 restricted items are part
of tour until the newspaper reported the protest and provided detailed
discussion.
Now my question is "why Ministry of Education held the review meeting
by experts for this Chinese artwork tour yesterday (January, 13 1996),
two months before exhibit at Metropolitan museum this March? It seems
that all exhibit items have NOT got a final OK from ROC government yet."
The review meeting should have been held at least a couple years ago.
Why wait until now? Whose faults??? The protesters or the government?
Also, according to Minister of Education, the agreement did not say
those 27 items must be included. So I dont see Taiwan has broken the
promise even if those 27 items dont go abroad.
Boulder912
>
>Metropolitan Museum of Art people did say ( in the report I mentioned )
>they are willing to provide some of their collections for exhibitions in
>National Palace Museum. Don't forget that National Palace Museum,
>Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, Louvre in France and
>British Museum are ranked the top four museums in the world.
According to the report, the person is only the director of Oriental
Arts at Metropolitan. He told the reporters that Metropolitan is
willing to lend their Chinese collections to the Palace Museum. Firstly,
he said to reporters but not to ROC government that does not mean
much. Secondly, does his position give him such rights? I doubt it.
My question is what is their offer in terms of quantity and quality.
Will they fund their tour? Remember we have offered 475 items of
Chinese artworks, can they match? It does not have to be oriental
artworks. It can be the western artworks too. Then put
them in writing before letting ours to the US. Two months should be
enough time for the first phase of negotiation. Dont you think so?
Personally I doubt it will happen. Want to bet? ;)
>Of course, according to the report, these planned items ARE Chinese
>caligraphies. Some of them might be legally purchased by the museum
>while some others might be the robbery collection from the West when
>China was weak, but the museum had its sincerity, don't you think so?
I do NOT think so unless it is in writing.
Tung-Chiang Yang
> Chinese artworks were shipped out of Beijing during WWII to prevent them
> falling into Japanese hands and again shipped out of mainland China to
> prevent them falling into CCP's hands. Those shippings were necessary
> based on the experience. For example, during the boxer rebellion, many
> Chinese treaures in Beijing were burn into ashes by foreign troops.
> Also many artworks were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution. You
> should thanks CKS for the shippings. ;)
I don't blame CKS for doing this, though Vincent Yang will blame him for
stealing gold and these artworks from Mainland China ;)
> Since you are also concerned about the safety of those treasures then
> Chang's concerns stand, he opposes we pay millions but also worry
> their safety, is it worthy?
My question is just "why can't these people protest earlier when the
problem could be solved more easily, but choose to protest in the last
minute?"
> Now here is a little history, the "bones of Peking man" were lost when
> shipping to the US by US warships during WWII.
I know this story, but I cannot comment too much here since I knew little
about the story. In my view, there were only two possibilities:
(1) The US battleship was sunk by a Japanese submarine. In this case, we
"knew" where the bones are now.
(2) The ship arrived in the US safe and sound, then the one "taking care
of the bones" is responsible. It could be the commander of the US
battleship.
> Remember those are the masterpieces of masterpieces and quantity is 27
> not a few and last collection of Wang Si-Zi's work is one of them loaded
> on one Air Cargo... We dont have to oppose all the artwork tours but you
> need
> to know what have been sent out.
> Has any nation allowed their best collections out of country once?
> If foreigners really appreciate Chinese artworks they should go to Taiwan
> as they go to Paris for Mona Lisa.
Again, personally I am neither for nor against the overseas exhibition
of these artworks. Both sides have their pros and cons. But again, I
just don't know why people could not protest earlier.
> By the way, TC can I borrow your PC and you pay for the shipping cost
> and maintenace so that I can rent it out I promise I will tell everybody
> how
> good your PC is. ;)
You can pay my airline tickets :) I used a notebook at home and I can
be the carrier of the shipments.
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Jan 12, 1996
Boulder912
>My notebook computer was already depreciated by around $1500 since I got
>it around 1.5 years ago. I won't give it to an AoL user :)
I have one notebook and one desktop and dont mind the third one. ;)
>I am now wondering if Boulder912 is a woman :)
I have been wondering if TC Yang is a girl and can smile like Danny's
little sister, Mona Lisa Chi. ;)
Chang-Ping Lee
of priority. I oppose to this tour because I have the follow
order in mind.
1. Protection for the national treasure.
2. Respect to the national treasure and to those masters that
created them. I am not talking about *our* pride or *our*
self-respect which in my mind are important, but not as
important.
3. Benefit to east-west cultural exchange.
(BTW, I don't think we should even think about using the artworks
for Taiwan's international relationship. Use money or whatever
you like, but not the cultural treasure please.)
One better way to continue the argument is for each to ask
her/himself what are the concerns and what kind of order
s/he has in mind.
Now, TC Yang said US pays for the tour too. If this is true
I think point 2 is less a concern in the name of point 3.
But, my point 1 still remains and I am still against the
tour.
Chang
In article <4d6i46$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Boulder912 <bould...@aol.com> wrote:
>Tung-Chiang Yang wrote:
>>
>>The discussions about exhibitions of these priceless artworks began some
>>time ago, probably at least one year. Even several months ago there was
>>a "preparatory exhibition" in National Palace Museum which attacted a lot
>>of people. Some people even took flights from Kaohsiung to Taipei to
>>view the exhibitions. Where were the people who protest now?
>
>Ordinary people dont necessarily understand the importance of those 27
>pieces of artworks. After the further discussions, people started to be
>aware of it. Most of those 27 pieces are Chinese paintings and
>caligrapgy back to the Soong dynasty, they are already very fragile
>and the color has much faded. Can they endure 4 times of packing and
>unpacking and shipping city to city throughout US tours?
>
>>If Mr. CHING, Shiao-yi, the director of National Palace Museum told the
>>public that only some minor artworks will be sent to the US for
>>exhibition while in fact the important ones will be sent abroad instead,
>>then his lie should cost him and he should step down right away.
>>However, if people were aware of the exhibited items and remain silent
>>until the Metropolitan Museum of Art sent staffs to Taiwan, ready for
>>the shipping and packaging process, it just tell the US and also the
>>world a message:
>>
>>"Don't trust what Taiwan says as it can be changed at the last minute".
>
>Spain and Eygpt all cancelled their oversea exhibitions before. The
>true museum lovers can understand the feelings of Taiwan people. Also,
>a public hearing by the experts can be held to re-examine which item
>should stay and which item can leave. There may not be necessary to
>cancel the scheduled exhibition but the contents of the exhibition.
>Finding the substitutes (not duplicates) is also another alternative.
>
Boulder912
>
>Thanks for your information. It will be interesting that ordinary people
>do not realize the importance of those 27 pieces of artworks for 4 years,
>and all of a sudeen, some lightning stroke on them and they realize it.
The lightning stroke on them is due to the detailed reports and
discussions by media. Use Watergate scandal as an example, American
people did not know how serious it was at the beginning until the
extensive reports and discussions by media, finally they were aware
of it.
When did you know all those details? You also read them from World
Journal, right? ;)
BTW, total artworks for this tour are 475 pieces and 27 pieces in
dispute are only 6%.
>( P.S. On World Journal, Jan. 12, 1996, Los Angeles edition, an
> interview reported that Metropolitan Museum of Art had this plan
> four years ago. Of course, the actual details with National
> Palace Museum about the exhibition should be less than four
years,
> but let me use 4 here )
Then why did the Ministry of Education hold its first review meeting by
experts for this artwork tour yesterday (January 13, 1996)? What if the
experts recommend some of pieces should stay home? Let me emphasize here
that this is the FIRST meeting just held yesterday which is only two
months
away from exhibit at Metropolitan Museum this March. Then how can you
blame ordinary people not aware of the details.
BTW, your concern about the promise is not the case here.
>According to the report in World Journal, even if these artworks are not
>shipped out of Taiwan, every time they are taken from the depot and ready
>for display, they will be folded and unfolded once. Hmmm, for their
>safety we should seal them and never put them on exhibition again.
Like I said, it is not just folding and unfolding but packing and
unpacking
and shiping from one city to another city throughout the US. And these 27
pieces are only shown in the Natioanl Palace Museum under very restricted
rules and less frequency as other items. And I never said it should be
locked up in the warehouse for good as you suggested here.
>I did not know Spain and Egypt did this until today I read the report in
>World Journal. Spain did it for the reason "the regime is changed and
>the new regime does not want to fulfill the promise set by the former
>one". The report did not say the reason for Egypt. Maybe like the one
>ROC has today. But I am wondering if Egypt also withdrew its promise at
>the last minute.
Like I said, it does not have to withdraw the promise but review those
27 pieces to see which item can go or to find the substitutes ...
And even Minister of Education also said yesterday that the agreement
with Metropolitan museum did not say those 27 pieces artworks must be
included.
Any comments?
>You do have a point :) I guess we only need to send a 10-year-old
>elementary pupil to the US and show them what "Chinese caligraphy" is.
>You see, in this way ROC risk nothing, the pupil is happy ( for having a
>chance to go to Disney ) and the Americans get a good lesson about
>Chinese caligraphy.
Tung-Chiang Yang
it around 1.5 years ago. I won't give it to an AoL user :)
This is a joke in this heated discussion and further followups not
recommended.
I am now wondering if Boulder912 is a woman :)
=================================
Danny Chi (dan...@netcom.com) wrote:
> What a net-friend! Yang is luck since he is not married yet.
> -- Danny Chi
> ** How about giving away your old PC to Boulder912 and
> spending more time with girls.
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Jan 13, 1996
Boulder912
>
>Yes, people in Taiwan received details reports :) How many of them know
>the US government and civilian foundations also contribute part of the
>expense?
Ask them. Dont forget to mention this oversea tour is one-way cultural
exchange but not mutual benefits to see how they react.
>Since so many people protest, if MOE did not hold any public hearing, I
>don't know what the minister is doing and he is going to be grilled by
>the Legislators for sure.
I thought this meeting is a scheduled meeting. That's why Ministry of
Education complained the Palace Museum did not follow procedures
submitting
the required documents. Please check World Journal again for the report
on finger pointing between MOE and Palace Museum.
>Do you imply that people become aware of the exhibition from the MOE
>review meeting? People started to protest much earlier than the review
>meeting. Which means they learn their stories from some other sources.
Did I say they learned from Ministry of Education? I only said even
Ministry of Education has not given a final OK to the exhibition, then
how can you expect the people are more informed?
>Show us what the case should be :)
I thought the words from Minister of Education should have relieved your
concern about Taiwan keeping promise. Still worry?
Then let me repeat his words here. Kuo Wei-Fang said he has reviewed the
agreement and the agreement did not say those 27 items have to be
included.
In other words, Taiwan will not break the promise even if those 27 items
do not go abroad. Your concern is not an issue, therefore, the case is
closed. ;) Feel better now? ;)
>Well, I did not suggest that. One of the interviewers for the report
>on Jan. 12, 1996 World Journal said that National Palace Museum should
>not be a big depot.
Ah, same person who offered their collections to Taiwan - Mr. Fung Weng.
Then could you tell me any protester has said the restricted items
should be sealed in the Palace Museum's warehouse and never be displayed?
If not, why waste time to mention it?
>As the report said, Metropolitan Museum and Art will never exhibit
>imitations, and so is National Palace Museum.
Did I say imitations? I said substitutes. Substitutes is to find
similar items but not imitations.
>MOE now is trying to find excuses, just like Vice-Premier Hsu said
>earlier "the President does not have to approve the resignation from the
>Premier" :)
MOE is trying to find excuses? Gee, are you saying Minister of Education,
Kuo Wei-Fang lying about the agreement? Please clarify your "MOE now
is trying to find excuses".
>One question. Do you think Wang Si-zi's caligraphy should belong to
>Wang's offsprings instead of being viewed as a national treasure? Do
>you think his offsprings should request exhibitions of his
>grand^n father's caligraphy with imitations? This question actually
>asked you if we should draw the line between ROC/US or Wang/not Wangs.
Wang Si-Zi's work belongs to whoever owns it. The owner can be Wang's
offsprings or private collector or the institution. It is their rights
if the private collectors do not want to share their collection even
it's Wang Si-Zi's work. But if an artwork has been donated to the
institution, then no one but that institution has a say about that
artwork.
One more time, I never said imitation. In my earlier post, I noted that
substitutes (not duplicates), please dig it out. How can I embarrass
myself on SCT to suggest duplicates (or imitations) for the world class
museums like Metropolitan Museum? ;)
Alan M Kang
> Taiwan will pay about $8,000,000 for this exhibition trip. At the same time,
> you know how much ROC had recently paid to a tiny Africa country so that
> she said good-bye to PRC? The (unofficial) figure is $150,000,000.
>
Taiwan has had a long history of giving lots of money away and get nothing
back in return. One of these "tiny african countries" is Lesotho. ROC had
pumped millions of $ into Lesotho, in the hope that she would remain a "loyal
friend" to the republic. Yet in the end, Lesotho still severed diplomatic
ties with Taiwan and wagged her puppy tails for Mainland China. To add insult
to injury, Lesotho is a landlocked country surrounded by the then ultra anti-
communism South Africa, About 20 years ago the same thing happened in
Madagascar, The tax payers' money have contributed to nothing but speedy and
embarassing evictions for the Taiwanese officials, and most times, necessary
exodus for the Taiwanese expatriates from these beneficiary countries.
With all due respect to the good effort Taiwan has done in sustaining the
diplomatic relationship with the new South Africa, who knows how long the
status quo will remain before South Africa, currently Taiwan's biggest chum,
also turns her back on the all benevolent, wealthy and very generous Taiwan.
I am not passing judgement (should I?) on Taiwan's diplomatic prowess - it's
hard enough to get recognised in the world without Mainland China's constant
hinderance. But I would like to draw attention to the fact that Free goods are
Never appreciated by people - such is human nature! Corrolary: the more you
bend over backwards for someone, the more you invite disdain and contempt.
Will spending lots of money to sponsor a tour of the nation's heritage, pride
and joy in America be any different?
Boulder912
Mr. Fung Wen of Metropolitan Museum is also in the news. According to
the reports, the National Palace Museum not only gave away the book
copyright to Metropolitan but also allowed Metropolitan taking pictures
(should not be allowed) on every exhibition item (total 475) including
those 27 restricted items. The report also said, Metropolitan
Museum's original plan was just a small exhibition. But
Chin Shiao-Yi, director of the National Palace Museum had a
"pleasant talk" with Mr. Fung Wen when he visited Taiwan and decided to
offer more items including those 27 restricted artworks. The National
Palace Museum has also ignored Ministry of Education's rights for
reviewing the exhibit items and the whole process has been criticized
as "Black Box Operation".
So read World Journal for details,
Tung-Chiang Yang
> As an ordinary person, I did not know those 27 restricted items are part
> of tour until the newspaper reported the protest and provided detailed
> discussion.
Do you know National Palace Museum was going to have an overseas
exhibition with New York City? If yes, when did you know?
Now I am interested to know if National Palace Museum intended to cheat
people ( or hid something from the people ), or just people ignored it.
We are in the US and the information might not be as easily available as
people actually in Taiwan.
> Now my question is "why Ministry of Education held the review meeting
> by experts for this Chinese artwork tour yesterday (January, 13 1996),
> two months before exhibit at Metropolitan museum this March? It seems
> that all exhibit items have NOT got a final OK from ROC government yet."
> The review meeting should have been held at least a couple years ago.
> Why wait until now? Whose faults??? The protesters or the government?
Sure. This is the point.
(1) National Palace Museum did not report this to Ministry of Education
for this exhibition ( which AFAIK to be likely the case, at least
for the official documents ), and some people in NPM have to be
responsible.
(2) NPM did notify MOE in advance, but MOE did not respond in time. In
this case, some people in MOE have to be responsible.
Here by "notify", I mean any ways of notification, not just for official
documents. We all know the official documents travels very slowly in
Taiwan ( probably everywhere in the world :) )
Apparently there is no doubt that NPM has released that it would have
some exhibition with Metropolitan Museum of Art in the past ( this is why
I knew this in the past ), but maybe the people, MOE and the legislators
all ignored that some of the exhibitions could involve specially
important artworks. Right now I would bet this is the most likely
scenario.
> Also, according to Minister of Education, the agreement did not say
> those 27 items must be included. So I dont see Taiwan has broken the
> promise even if those 27 items dont go abroad.
That's true, but you know not everything can be explained by the laws
and contracts ......
Boulder912
>
>Yes, people from Metropolitan Museum of Art said they would be willing
>to exchange similar items for exhibitions in National Palace Museum.
>Of course, if New York citizens protest, they might have to cancel the
>plan :)
This guy just worked for Oriental Arts division at Metropolitan. This
kind of decision can not be made by just one person but by, say, the
committe. This is the common sense everyone should have. But you
believed it. ;)
Ok, pursue his "offer" to see if he *alone* can decide.
>Next time if National Palace Museum in Beijing and that in Taipei want to
>have some exchange exhibition, ROCers can still protest on that. You
>see, Beijing people cannot protest and that is an advantage for people
>in Taiwan.
I dont see it relevant to this discussion. Unless you mean we should
be grateful for the protest rights? Ok, thanks for DPP and THL. ;)
Still, it does not solve the problem.
>That is exactly the point. Yes, people admiring Chinese caligraphy
>should go to Taiwan to see with their own eyes, but if the caligraphy
>can be exhibited in New York, people in the US can save the time and
>money to appreciate Chinese culture better. This means more people will
>appreciate the Chinese culture.
How many American people can appreciate Chinese caligraphy? Most of
them can not even read Chinese. Then why send Wang Si-Zi's work which
is already fragile?
>Do you think all museum goers are rich? How many young students can
>afford the time and the airfare?
Then you should go to Europe this summer to see Louvre museum is flocked
with young American students as well as their counterparts from other
countries.
>I would advise you use a freenet. Read "alt.aol-sucks" and you will
>know why AoLers are usually laughed by other people. This part deviates
>from the subject and further statements along this like will be ignored.
Thanks for your "advice". Based on your judgement above, I have some
reservation. ;)
>You bet.
At least you know my e-mail address is no fake. ;)
>Getting nothing back? More people appreciate the Chinese culture and
>that is what ROC got, and actually that is what China and Chinese got.
If it is just for the sake of appreciating the Chinese culture,
Metropolitan already has some of best Chinese artwork collections.
It should have served the purpose. Then how many New Yorkers
can read Chinese and appreciate Chinese caligraphy? Yeah right,
maybe Wang Si-Zi's work can create China fever, learning Chinese
and Chinese caligraphy. ;)
>Just like Danny said, I believe "bones of Peking man" belongs to the
>whole human race, not just Chinese. China just happened to be the
>keeper.
Then donate the National Palace Museum to UN. ;)
>I don't know much about the Peking bone history. But I know definitely
>no one will get any compensation if a Japanese soldier invading Peking
>used the bones as toys and then threw them into the trashcan.
Gee, after all, we should not have felt so bad, "the bone of Peking man"
might have been trashed by Japanese soldiers anyway? Ok. ;)
>During WWII when the plan for shipping the bones showed up ( I don't know
if
>the US requested that or ROC requested that first ), the US should say
>"oh, no. It is your business. China owns the bones, not the US. If
>I promise to ship and keep the bones, then I will be held responsible.
>That is not funny. Please keep it with yourself".
If you do not know who made such request then how could you make such
assumption? You should write scripts for Hollywood. ;)
How come this time American museums did not use your script? ;)
Boulder912
>
>Well, even if he said to ROC government ( Metropolitan Museum of Art is
>a civilian organization and it can use "ROC" ), without contract, his
>words do not matter. Even with contract, unless the contract clearly
>states what artworks will be shipped to Taiwan, he can still regret.
>He learned this lesson from ROC :)
They did not learn this lesson from ROC but they dont have good lawyers.
Just kidding!
You need to check World Journal again, according to the report, the
contract, under some circumstance, Taiwan has rights to withdraw/exchange
some of exhibition items, I dont remember the details. That may leave
the room for changing minds. ;) But cancelling the tour is a different
matter may break the contract and result in the compensation. If
the contract allows ROC to change the contents of exhibition but
Metropolitan refuses and cancels the exhibit, then maybe they can be
sued too. ;)
>I believe he, as the Director of Oriental Arts, can make such a
>statement. If Metropolitan Museum of Art considered him making some
>mistakes, they have to fire him or correct what he said before too late.
>Otherwise, what he said represents the museum.
No, he only said they ARE WILLING TO but not they have decided to.
I am willing to ....but ....
or
I have decided to ... but ....
There is a difference.
Even though, in the business world, everything needs to put into writing,
particulary, in World Financial Capital, New York City. ;) Think the
billions transaction per day. No one can afford it.
>First problem: it is difficult to compare priceless stuffs with priceless
>stuffs.
>
>I have to admit that I am not a museum goer, but it is hard for me to
>imagine to see some "Western" collections in National Palace Museum.
Use common sense. Of course, it should leave to the experts decide.
>Again, here I think only the risk in the transportation process of the
>overseas shipping is the justified reason to reconsider this exhibition.
>"Exchanging items" do not solve this problem at all.
Well, as long as review the contracts to see what they can do.
>If you meet a loyal guy, you can trust what he says even no contract is
>signed.
>
>If you meet a dishonest guy, you cannot trust him even if he signs
>something.
Business is business and that has nothing to do with trust or not.
If you dont trust the person, then you should not do the business
with him/her in the first place.
p.s. I have spent too much on SCT and going to scale back so I will reply
any posts briefly to none for a while.
Boulder912
>
>Do you know National Palace Museum was going to have an overseas
>exhibition with New York City? If yes, when did you know?
Several months ago, I think. I heard it but did not pay attention to it.
I usually visit Palace Museum when I go home.
Remember I myself dont have the expertise to make judegement on the
exhibition items but can only judge if the arguments make sense to
me or not.
>Now I am interested to know if National Palace Museum intended to cheat
>people ( or hid something from the people ), or just people ignored it.
>We are in the US and the information might not be as easily available as
>people actually in Taiwan.
It is not people's obligation to know if National Palace Museum did the
right thing. Most of them dont have knowledge or time to do it. But
when the news breaks out, some people may become interested or involved.
>Sure. This is the point.
>
>(1) National Palace Museum did not report this to Ministry of Education
> for this exhibition ( which AFAIK to be likely the case, at least
> for the official documents ), and some people in NPM have to be
> responsible.
>(2) NPM did notify MOE in advance, but MOE did not respond in time. In
> this case, some people in MOE have to be responsible.
>
>Here by "notify", I mean any ways of notification, not just for official
>documents. We all know the official documents travels very slowly in
>Taiwan ( probably everywhere in the world :) )
>
>Apparently there is no doubt that NPM has released that it would have
>some exhibition with Metropolitan Museum of Art in the past ( this is why
>I knew this in the past ), but maybe the people, MOE and the legislators
>all ignored that some of the exhibitions could involve specially
>important artworks. Right now I would bet this is the most likely
>scenario.
MOE is certainly the institution involved in the process. If they already
had the experts review the exhibition items, then why bother to do it
again.
Apparently, they have not done so. It should have been done long time
ago.
The question is why do it in the last minutes???
And legislative Yuan is not necessarily involved in the process, it is not
their function, after all. But anger from their voters will certainly
bring to their attention.
Not even to mention the ordinary people as I stated above.
>That's true, but you know not everything can be explained by the laws
>and contracts ......
Then we should not worry something beyond explanation, right? ;)
Boulder912
>
>I think all the controversy around this tour is about the order
>of priority. I oppose to this tour because I have the follow
>order in mind.
>
>1. Protection for the national treasure.
>
>2. Respect to the national treasure and to those masters that
> created them. I am not talking about *our* pride or *our*
> self-respect which in my mind are important, but not as
> important.
>
>3. Benefit to east-west cultural exchange.
>
>(BTW, I don't think we should even think about using the artworks
>for Taiwan's international relationship. Use money or whatever
>you like, but not the cultural treasure please.)
>
>One better way to continue the argument is for each to ask
>her/himself what are the concerns and what kind of order
>s/he has in mind.
>
>Now, TC Yang said US pays for the tour too. If this is true
>I think point 2 is less a concern in the name of point 3.
>But, my point 1 still remains and I am still against the
>tour.
>
>Chang
I dont oppose this tour but feel the concern from people in Taiwan
need to be addressed before letting the Chinese treasure out again.
1. 27 restricted items need to be reviewed by the experts based on
individual condition and if the item will help the cultural
exchange.
2. Mutual benefits. ROC pays for half of the expense and put those
artworks at risk. They deserve something in return. For example,
American museums would provide their stuff with similar quantity
and quality and also fund portion of their tour. Without it,
this tour is not worthy.
Too much to ask?
Mark Lee
I just got this off the radio:
Three of the 27 articles in question will not be shipped to the US. In the
seminar I attended yesterday on this topic, I learned that majority of these
27 items were so poorly maintained that they would probably suffer some
kind of damage during this long visit.
In fact, if not for the presidential election, these articles will probably
go to the US without much press coverage. Unfortunately for LTH, this
trip happened two month before the election. All of a sudden, every
presidential candidate now becomes an art collector and defender of our
national treasures.
From what I heard last night, our national museum does not do a proper
job at preserving these artworks. On the other hand, museums all over the
world seem to be interested in having them (and probably do a better job
at preserving them). Why don't we just rent them to museums all over the
world and use the proceeds to teach our children about art appreciation.
Just my two cents.
Tung-Chiang Yang
> Tung-Chiang Yang wrote:
> >
> >Do you know National Palace Museum was going to have an overseas
> >exhibition with New York City? If yes, when did you know?
> Several months ago, I think. I heard it but did not pay attention to it.
Good. Several months ago, did you wonder what items NPM would exchange
for exhibitions in MMA? Or you believe "NPM must be exchanging some
trifling stuffs for the tour"?
> ( deleted )
> It is not people's obligation to know if National Palace Museum did the
> right thing. Most of them dont have knowledge or time to do it. But
> when the news breaks out, some people may become interested or involved.
Another source told me that several months ago this issue has already
raised a ministorm in the school BBS'. Why others in Taiwan were not
aware of it? ( assuming this source is reliable )
> MOE is certainly the institution involved in the process. If they already
> had the experts review the exhibition items, then why bother to do it
> again.
> Apparently, they have not done so. It should have been done long time
> ago.
> The question is why do it in the last minutes???
Let's work together to force Mr. Kuo step down.......
> And legislative Yuan is not necessarily involved in the process, it is not
> their function, after all. But anger from their voters will certainly
> bring to their attention.
> ( deleted )
> >That's true, but you know not everything can be explained by the laws
> >and contracts ......
> Then we should not worry something beyond explanation, right? ;)
If you "promised" to do something but later "regreted", it needs a good
explanation.
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Jan 14, 1996
Tung-Chiang Yang
> They did not learn this lesson from ROC but they dont have good lawyers.
> Just kidding!
> You need to check World Journal again, according to the report, the
> contract, under some circumstance, Taiwan has rights to withdraw/exchange
> some of exhibition items, I dont remember the details. That may leave
> the room for changing minds. ;) But cancelling the tour is a different
> matter may break the contract and result in the compensation. If
> the contract allows ROC to change the contents of exhibition but
> Metropolitan refuses and cancels the exhibit, then maybe they can be
> sued too. ;)
Well, nobody will be sued. Just from now on, people will apply a 25% off
in what National Palace Museum says. For some people, they will expand
it to what ROC says, just like people in Taiwan expand MMA to the US.
> No, he only said they ARE WILLING TO but not they have decided to.
> I am willing to ....but ....
> or
> I have decided to ... but ....
> There is a difference.
Pal, even if they say they "decided", they did not say "We won't regret".
The Americans must be puzzled at the speaking art of Chinese.
> Even though, in the business world, everything needs to put into writing,
> particulary, in World Financial Capital, New York City. ;) Think the
> billions transaction per day. No one can afford it.
True, but you know, credibility is not something shown in written stuffs.
I guess this means that LTH could also deny he said he would not run
another term, since he never signed any contracts about that. Chinese
people, including LTH, are indeed quite clever.
> ( deleted )
> Business is business and that has nothing to do with trust or not.
> If you dont trust the person, then you should not do the business
> with him/her in the first place.
If you do not trust him, even with a signed contract, you still won't
do any business with him.
> p.s. I have spent too much on SCT and going to scale back so I will reply
> any posts briefly to none for a while.
That is a good idea. Keep in mind that TC Yang has infinite amount of
time to spend in Usenet. It is time for you to use another ISP as AoL
charges for the connection time.
Tung-Chiang Yang
time to force Mr. Ching to step down. Hope people won't accuse LTH for
"forcing the last CCK people to leave".
Personally I don't see any reason why people cannot take photos for the
artworks as long as the lighting condition won't damage the artworks
themselves. The copyright stuff is another issue.
==========================================================
Tung-Chiang Yang
check into the internal management of National Palace Museum for their
poor maintainance work ( based on your inputs ). We should thank
Metropolitan Museum of Art for giving us such an opportunity.
========================================
Mark Lee (m...@pc2.hinet.net) wrote:
> Just my two cents.
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Jan 15, 1996
Tung-Chiang Yang
> Ask them. Dont forget to mention this oversea tour is one-way cultural
> exchange but not mutual benefits to see how they react.
One-way? How do you know there won't be another way of exchange in the
future?
No doubt the black sheep and the white sheep don't want to yield to the
other on the bridge. Typical Chinese thinking, not trusting each other
by default.
> I thought this meeting is a scheduled meeting. That's why Ministry of
> Education complained the Palace Museum did not follow procedures
> submitting
> the required documents. Please check World Journal again for the report
> on finger pointing between MOE and Palace Museum.
Maybe it is a scheduled meeting. Now the problem is when it was
scheduled, before or after the protests.
> Did I say they learned from Ministry of Education? I only said even
> Ministry of Education has not given a final OK to the exhibition, then
> how can you expect the people are more informed?
Hmmm, after the protest, MOE is definitely not to make its decision and
will leave it to Executive Yuan, and eventually it will go to LTH. There
will be one more accusation waiting for him for the election. If he said
"no", people accuse him for blemishing ROC's credit. If he said "yes",
people accuse him for buying another trip to the US.
That MOE did not give an O.K. did not mean others are not informed.
> I thought the words from Minister of Education should have relieved your
> concern about Taiwan keeping promise. Still worry?
> Then let me repeat his words here. Kuo Wei-Fang said he has reviewed the
> agreement and the agreement did not say those 27 items have to be
> included.
> In other words, Taiwan will not break the promise even if those 27 items
> do not go abroad. Your concern is not an issue, therefore, the case is
> closed. ;) Feel better now? ;)
True. Just ship some 27 items from local artwork shops. That keeps
Taiwan a good fame and silence the protests.
> Ah, same person who offered their collections to Taiwan - Mr. Fung Weng.
> Then could you tell me any protester has said the restricted items
> should be sealed in the Palace Museum's warehouse and never be displayed?
> If not, why waste time to mention it?
Well, people just say they should not go overseas and be Yuan Da Tou.
Hmmm, you are much smarter than ordinary AoLers.
> Did I say imitations? I said substitutes. Substitutes is to find
> similar items but not imitations.
How do you compare the importance of the substitutes? So some of them
can be risked for the transportation while some others cannot? I
apologize if actually you are a private artwork scholar.
> MOE is trying to find excuses? Gee, are you saying Minister of Education,
> Kuo Wei-Fang lying about the agreement? Please clarify your "MOE now
> is trying to find excuses".
MOE said ROC can use substitutes. That is an excuse.
> Wang Si-Zi's work belongs to whoever owns it. The owner can be Wang's
> offsprings or private collector or the institution. It is their rights
> if the private collectors do not want to share their collection even
> it's Wang Si-Zi's work. But if an artwork has been donated to the
> institution, then no one but that institution has a say about that
> artwork.
So you mean if today his offspring kept the caligraphy and he got insane
and want to burn the caligraphy, nobody can legally stop him?
> One more time, I never said imitation. In my earlier post, I noted that
> substitutes (not duplicates), please dig it out. How can I embarrass
> myself on SCT to suggest duplicates (or imitations) for the world class
> museums like Metropolitan Museum? ;)
Maybe you never used imitations. In the eyes of real artwork lovers,
substitutes are almost equivalent to imitations. What do you feel if you
go to National Palace Museum and found no famous Jade Cabbage and Cooked
Pork while everything there is for real?
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Jan 14, 1996
Boulder912
>
>Thanks for your input. Just like what you said, it is time to have a
>check into the internal management of National Palace Museum for their
>poor maintainance work ( based on your inputs ). We should thank
>Metropolitan Museum of Art for giving us such an opportunity.
Without the protest, no one will ever know what kind of deal made between
the Palace Museum and the Metropolitan Museum. Thanks for the protesters
but not Metropolitan.
According to today World Journal, the review committe has decided the
following:
1. Three restricted items has been removed from the list and rest of
items are still under review and will be decided at the second
review meeting.
2. The restricted items will be exhibited at only one museum either
NYC or D.C. to prevent the damage due to excessive shipping and
packing.
3. Other items will be exhibited at the museums in New York and/or D.C.
San Francisco and Chicago tours may be cancelled.
Metropolitan Museum said yesterday that they have never insisted all the
items must be exhibited (which contradicted to Mr. Fung's claim).
p.s. Mr. Fung is a consultant to Oriental Arts division of Metropolitan
Museum. The real director of this division, Mr. Chiu is in Taiwan
at this moment and made the above statement.
Tung-Chiang Yang
> Without the protest, no one will ever know what kind of deal made between
> the Palace Museum and the Metropolitan Museum. Thanks for the protesters
> but not Metropolitan.
Hmmm, a good idea. Now please organize some people to protest about
the closure of files about KMT and CKS in the past, and demand for the
good maintainence of these files. After all, just like what you said,
protestors contribute everything but not the organization initiating the
motive.
> According to today World Journal, the review committe has decided the
> following:
> 1. Three restricted items has been removed from the list and rest of
> items are still under review and will be decided at the second
> review meeting.
Of course, ROC can have the third, the fourth and the fifth review
meetings until all artworks are not allowed for the tour :)
> 2. The restricted items will be exhibited at only one museum either
> NYC or D.C. to prevent the damage due to excessive shipping and
> packing.
>
> 3. Other items will be exhibited at the museums in New York and/or D.C.
> San Francisco and Chicago tours may be cancelled.
> Metropolitan Museum said yesterday that they have never insisted all the
> items must be exhibited (which contradicted to Mr. Fung's claim).
Good. It is time for ROCers in the US to protest to Metropolitan Museum
of Art to fire Mr. Fung as he lied. "If it doesn't fit, then call it a
quit" :)
> p.s. Mr. Fung is a consultant to Oriental Arts division of Metropolitan
> Museum. The real director of this division, Mr. Chiu is in Taiwan
> at this moment and made the above statement.
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Jan 17, 1996
Mark Lee
Before this recent outcry of shipping national treasures to the US, I
did not pay much attention to our National Palace Museum. (too busy
with the newsgroup, i guess) But as I attended more and more of these
rallies, I was horrified to learn how our National Palace Museum was
run.
It is a sad reflection of our country when the curator of our national
museum is no more than a political puppet for the ruling party. Mr.Chin,
the curator of the National Palace Museum is a phony who does not have
the passion for antiques necessary to run this place. He told the press
a few times that we could not show replicates to Metropolitan Museum in
New York. But I found out in the last seminar that National Palace Museum
has shown a few replicates in Taiwan in order to better preserve the
originals. It's funny how foreigners get to see the real thing and our
own people can only use their imagination looking at the fake items.
Yet another reason to clean house.
Boulder912
>
>Hmmm, a good idea. Now please organize some people to protest about
>the closure of files about KMT and CKS in the past, and demand for the
>good maintainence of these files.
I heard KMT has maintained them well.
>After all, just like what you said,
>protestors contribute everything but not the organization initiating the
>motive.
Of course, the credit also goes to the organization who organized the
protest.
>Of course, ROC can have the third, the fourth and the fifth review
>meetings until all artworks are not allowed for the tour :)
You worry too much. ;)
>Good. It is time for ROCers in the US to protest to Metropolitan Museum
>of Art to fire Mr. Fung as he lied. "If it doesn't fit, then call it a
>quit" :)
Nah, he is just a small potato. ;)
BTW, do you know why Mr. Fung insisted 27 pieces of artworks to be part
of tours? Mr. Fung is the host of "Chinese Soong Painting studies"
conference during the exhibit, and these 27 pieces contain some of most
important Soong paintings including Fang-Kwan's.
Boulder912
their own artworks at their own museum but the originals are sent to
oversea for exhibition. I guess we are still the second class citizens
in Taiwan and abroad. Then how can we blame the foreigners in China
in early years putting the sign "Chinese and dogs are not allowed".
But this time we are mistreated by our own people.
And the National Palace incident is just one of examples. Our President
would rather tell his feelings to the foreign journalist. Our government
would
rather listen to foreign advisors (e.g., disastrous Taipei Rapid Transit
System)...
Tung-Chiang Yang
> Tung-Chiang Yang wrote:
> >Hmmm, a good idea. Now please organize some people to protest about
> >the closure of files about KMT and CKS in the past, and demand for the
> >good maintainence of these files.
> I heard KMT has maintained them well.
---
I also heard Mr. Ching has maintained the treasures in National Palace
Museum well.
I also heard KMT has maintained the 228 documents well.
I heard too many things ......
---
> >After all, just like what you said,
> >protestors contribute everything but not the organization initiating the
> >motive.
> Of course, the credit also goes to the organization who organized the
> protest.
---
So, you are telling us there is an organization behind the National
Palace Museum protest. Tell us what it is ( if I did not misunderstand
you ).
---
> >Of course, ROC can have the third, the fourth and the fifth review
> >meetings until all artworks are not allowed for the tour :)
> You worry too much. ;)
---
I am not worrying. I am trying to find reasons ( some people might want
to use excuses ) for ROC so eventually none of these artworks go
overseas :)
---
> >Good. It is time for ROCers in the US to protest to Metropolitan Museum
> >of Art to fire Mr. Fung as he lied. "If it doesn't fit, then call it a
> >quit" :)
> Nah, he is just a small potato. ;)
> BTW, do you know why Mr. Fung insisted 27 pieces of artworks to be part
> of tours? Mr. Fung is the host of "Chinese Soong Painting studies"
> conference during the exhibit, and these 27 pieces contain some of most
> important Soong paintings including Fang-Kwan's.
---
If he is just a small potato, then please give us the reason for the
big potato. The small potato benefiting something from the tour cannot
match the gains for the big potato.
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Jan 19, 1996
Boulder912
>
>> I heard KMT has maintained them well.
>---
>I also heard Mr. Ching has maintained the treasures in National Palace
>Museum well.
>
>I also heard KMT has maintained the 228 documents well.
>
>I heard too many things ......
I hope you could have asked where did I hear it instead of playing
meaningless "you heard, I heard" game.
Not long ago, "Yang-Ming Su-Wu" (Yang-Ming-Book-House) where the CKS
documents are stored had an open house for the journalists in Taiwan.
According to the World Journal, they are well maintained.
Now tell us where is your source of information concerning 228 documents.
>So, you are telling us there is an organization behind the National
>Palace Museum protest. Tell us what it is ( if I did not misunderstand
>you ).
Check World Journal, the organization called something like "save the
national treasure" that organized the protest. Some of organizers are
the artists and scholars. Members of Cloud Gate dance group also
participated the protest.
>I am not worrying. I am trying to find reasons ( some people might want
>to use excuses ) for ROC so eventually none of these artworks go
>overseas :)
Apparently you did not follow the news closely but sat there worrying
from your "imagination". Ministry of Education has decided they will
not cancel the tour but reviewed the artworks to ensure they are
suitable to go overseas. Now the tour is on schedule and only small
portion of artworks are not allowed to go due to the poor condition.
Arent you glad that those artworks have been reviewed before shipping
out?
>If he is just a small potato, then please give us the reason for the
>big potato. The small potato benefiting something from the tour cannot
>match the gains for the big potato.
Who's the big potato?
Please show us the reason that Mr. Fung will keep his promise, that is,
the Metropolitan Museum will send their stuff to Taiwan for exhibition
so that people in Taiwan can benefit it too.
BTW, Mr. Fung initially insisted that all 27 restricted pieces must be
part of the tour or Metropolitan will cancel the exhibit. How come
later he said Metroplotan will accept even only portion of 27 pieces.
Could you explain???
I am glad the artworks have been reviewed and I am also glad there are
people do care. Arent you glad?
Tung-Chiang Yang
> I hope you could have asked where did I hear it instead of playing
> meaningless "you heard, I heard" game.
> Not long ago, "Yang-Ming Su-Wu" (Yang-Ming-Book-House) where the CKS
> documents are stored had an open house for the journalists in Taiwan.
> According to the World Journal, they are well maintained.
> Now tell us where is your source of information concerning 228 documents.
Hmmm, maybe I made a mistake here. O.K. On 228 incident, who ( I am
talking about the history researchers, not ordinary people ) has access
to the related documents?
Probably for the Lei2 Jeng4 incident, or some other similar incidents,
documents kept by the previous "Jing3 Bei4 Zong3 Bu4" were missing, and
the guy in charge of military law enforcement ( Jun1 Fa3 ) got promoted.
Check this out.
> >So, you are telling us there is an organization behind the National
> >Palace Museum protest. Tell us what it is ( if I did not misunderstand
> >you ).
> Check World Journal, the organization called something like "save the
> national treasure" that organized the protest. Some of organizers are
> the artists and scholars. Members of Cloud Gate dance group also
> participated the protest.
Oh great. Finally there is some specific group interested in the
preservation of historical documents.
Why is it called "Save the National Treasure"? The word "save" might be
too strong here.
> Apparently you did not follow the news closely but sat there worrying
> from your "imagination". Ministry of Education has decided they will
> not cancel the tour but reviewed the artworks to ensure they are
> suitable to go overseas. Now the tour is on schedule and only small
> portion of artworks are not allowed to go due to the poor condition.
Yes, small portions. Actually if we count the numbers, it is about 7
among two or three hundreds. It is small, indeed.
Calling me not following up the news closely ..... I read almost all
issues of "The Journalist" and "World Journal" every day in Los Angeles.
I am wondering where you are in the United States and you can comment on
"you did not follow up the news closely" :)
> Arent you glad that those artworks have been reviewed before shipping
> out?
I am definitely happy about that. I am not a museumgoer, but it is a
good news for some people in Taiwan to concern about the national
treasure.
However, some people still have the thoughts like "ROC uses the money
from taxpayers to support the US for the tour while the US get the
admissions". That sounds really ridiculous.
I am not talking about you. Don't get me wrong ;)
> Who's the big potato?
Wait. You said Feng is only a small potato and I asked you who is the
big potato. Don't ask me this question. It is your responsibility to
provide the answer since you called Feng a small potato.
Don't give us the answer "Mr. Potato is the big potato" :) You are not
Woody and I am not Buzz Lightyear.
> Please show us the reason that Mr. Fung will keep his promise, that is,
> the Metropolitan Museum will send their stuff to Taiwan for exhibition
> so that people in Taiwan can benefit it too.
> BTW, Mr. Fung initially insisted that all 27 restricted pieces must be
> part of the tour or Metropolitan will cancel the exhibit. How come
> later he said Metroplotan will accept even only portion of 27 pieces.
> Could you explain???
Ask yourself this question. If you were in his shoes, what would you
say before the review for Ministry of Education, and what will you say
after the review with Ministry of Education? Since you criticize him,
I would expect some better answers from you.
> I am glad the artworks have been reviewed and I am also glad there are
> people do care. Arent you glad?
I am glad, but some people still say "LTH wants another visa so he does
not care about these treasures" or "We pay the insurance and shipping
while the US gets the admission". That sounds bad as people just find
reasons to support what they believe.
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Jan 27, 1996
Boulder912
>
>Hmmm, maybe I made a mistake here. O.K. On 228 incident, who ( I am
>talking about the history researchers, not ordinary people ) has access
>to the related documents?
Who has access to 228 documents is irrelevant to your previous statement
on
228 documents.
>Probably for the Lei2 Jeng4 incident, or some other similar incidents,
>documents kept by the previous "Jing3 Bei4 Zong3 Bu4" were missing, and
>the guy in charge of military law enforcement ( Jun1 Fa3 ) got promoted.
>Check this out.
Sorry, not familiar with the incidents you are talking about. And not
intested
either.
>Calling me not following up the news closely ..... I read almost all
>issues of "The Journalist" and "World Journal" every day in Los Angeles.
>I am wondering where you are in the United States and you can comment on
>"you did not follow up the news closely" :)
If you have followed the news closely, you should have known that
Ministry of Education already decided they will not cancel the tour
*right before* the first review meeting. And the artworks in dispute
are only 27 out of 475. Then how could you say "ROC tries to find an
excuse not to let *any* national treasures go overseas" or
"there will third, fourth, or fifth review meeting until none of artworks
go overseas".
I also read World Journal every day. ;)
>I am definitely happy about that. I am not a museumgoer, but it is a
>good news for some people in Taiwan to concern about the national
>treasure.
If you are definitely happy about that, then isnt it the whole purpose
of the protest? But you seemed to have problem with the protest.
>However, some people still have the thoughts like "ROC uses the money
>from taxpayers to support the US for the tour while the US get the
>admissions". That sounds really ridiculous.
>
>I am not talking about you. Don't get me wrong ;)
Ridiculous? Not necessary. Is this tour mutual cultural exchange?
As far as I know, Taiwan has sent their national treasures to the
US twice, I dont recall American museums have sent their stuff to
Taiwan. However, some people are very concerned if American young
people can afford the airfare I hope they can too be concerned if
Chinese young people in Taiwan can afford the airfare.
I am not talking about you. Dont get me wrong. ;)
>Wait. You said Feng is only a small potato and I asked you who is the
>big potato. Don't ask me this question. It is your responsibility to
>provide the answer since you called Feng a small potato.
I only said Mr. Fung is just a small potato but did not say there is a
big potato. On the contrary, you are the one mention "the big potato"
and even made a comment on it. Apparently, you knew "who's the big
potato"
that's why I am asking you "Who's the big potato".
>Don't give us the answer "Mr. Potato is the big potato" :) You are not
>Woody and I am not Buzz Lightyear.
Hmmm... you are not only "creative" but also like to make assumption.
>Ask yourself this question. If you were in his shoes, what would you
>say before the review for Ministry of Education, and what will you say
>after the review with Ministry of Education? Since you criticize him,
>I would expect some better answers from you.
If I were Mr. Fung, I would just tell the truth. The truth is if
Metropolitan Museum has insisted all proposed artoworks must exhibit
or they will cancel the exhibit. According to World Journal, Director
of Metropolitan Museum and Director of Oriental Arts at Metropolitan
all gave different answers from Mr. Fung's. Since you have faith on
his words, that's why I am asking for your opinion. ;)
>I am glad, but some people still say "LTH wants another visa so he does
>not care about these treasures" or "We pay the insurance and shipping
>while the US gets the admission". That sounds bad as people just find
>reasons to support what they believe.
Someone also still say "ROC tries to find an excuse not let *any* artwork
go overseas". That sounds bad as he just find reasons to support what he
believe". ;)
Boulder912
>
>> Who has access to 228 documents is irrelevant to your previous
statement
>> on
>> 228 documents.
>
>the artworks.
But it's still irelevant to your previous statement on 228 documents.
>> Ministry of Education already decided they will not cancel the tour
>> *right before* the first review meeting. And the artworks in dispute
>> are only 27 out of 475. Then how could you say "ROC tries to find an
>> excuse not to let *any* national treasures go overseas" or
>> "there will third, fourth, or fifth review meeting until none of
artworks
>> go overseas".
>
>Sorry, not familiar with the incidents you are talking about. And not
>intested ( you see, I also use your typo )
>either.
You are not familar with the incident but you have been talking about
it a lot. From your "imgination" or you often behave like that? ;)
>I have problems with the reasons of the protest.
What reasons of the protest you have problems with?
>> Ridiculous? Not necessary. Is this tour mutual cultural exchange?
>> As far as I know, Taiwan has sent their national treasures to the
>> US twice, I dont recall American museums have sent their stuff to
>> Taiwan. However, some people are very concerned if American young
>> people can afford the airfare I hope they can too be concerned if
>> Chinese young people in Taiwan can afford the airfare.
>
>Now tell us, what is the American National treasure? You want to match
>5000 years of history with 200 years, right?
Hmmm... I believe you are not a museum-goer. ;) American museums own good
treasures not only from their own but also from other nations. Did they
send those stuff to Taiwan even after we sent ours to the US twice?
>> I only said Mr. Fung is just a small potato but did not say there is a
>> big potato. On the contrary, you are the one mention "the big potato"
>> and even made a comment on it. Apparently, you knew "who's the big
>> potato"
>> that's why I am asking you "Who's the big potato".
>
>If there is no bigger potato, then Mr. Fung IS the biggest potato.
I did not say there is a big potato but you are the one mention "the big
potato" and even made a comment on it. That's why I was asking you
"who's the big potato". Now are you telling me there is no bigger potato
than Mr. Fung??? Or you did not kwow "the big potato" you were talking
about in your previous post??? ;)
>I would suggest we stop this topic. Ministry of Education has already
>made its decisions.
BTW, Mr. Chin, director of the Palace Museum still say this exhibit tour
will help ROC's diplomacy, according to today World Journal.
Tung-Chiang Yang
> >Maybe. From some point of view, these documents are as important as
> >the artworks.
> But it's still irelevant to your previous statement on 228 documents.
You said "I heard KMT maintain them ( the treasure ) well" and I
responded with "I heard KMT maintain the 228 documents well". This is
how this story is related to this thread -- "What you heard is not what
you know".
I suggest we stop covering 228 issues here.
> >Sorry, not familiar with the incidents you are talking about. And not
> >intested ( you see, I also use your typo )
> >either.
> You are not familar with the incident but you have been talking about
> it a lot. From your "imgination" or you often behave like that? ;)
Hmmm, you talk like you are an expert working in National Palace Museum
for 300 years. O.K. In that case, I am not familiar :P
> >I have problems with the reasons of the protest.
> What reasons of the protest you have problems with?
ROC uses taxpayer's money to pay for the tour while the US collects the
admission. This is also one of the original reasons you complained in
this thread, which made me quote the report from World Journal that
actually half of the funding comes from the US side.
> >Now tell us, what is the American National treasure? You want to match
> >5000 years of history with 200 years, right?
> Hmmm... I believe you are not a museum-goer. ;) American museums own good
> treasures not only from their own but also from other nations. Did they
> send those stuff to Taiwan even after we sent ours to the US twice?
Hmmmm, maybe no. Did ROC ask them to have a tour and they turned down
ROC's request? The answer is "no", too.
> >If there is no bigger potato, then Mr. Fung IS the biggest potato.
> I did not say there is a big potato but you are the one mention "the big
> potato" and even made a comment on it. That's why I was asking you
> "who's the big potato". Now are you telling me there is no bigger potato
> than Mr. Fung??? Or you did not kwow "the big potato" you were talking
> about in your previous post??? ;)
So what did you mean by "Mr. Fung is just a small potato"?
> BTW, Mr. Chin, director of the Palace Museum still say this exhibit tour
> will help ROC's diplomacy, according to today World Journal.
That's true. Without the tour fewer Americans know where Taiwan is.
Making people aware of Taiwan's existence is definitely a plus for
diplomacy and public relationships.
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Feb 3, 1996
Boulder912
>
>You said "I heard KMT maintain them ( the treasure ) well" and I
>responded with "I heard KMT maintain the 228 documents well". This is
>how this story is related to this thread -- "What you heard is not what
>you know".
Sorry I only said "I heard KMT maintained CKS' documents well" and
provided my source of information. And I never said "I heard KMT
maintained the treasure well" as you claimed, see your problem! ;)
Then you replied with "I heard KMT maintained the 228 document well"
but up to now you are unable to provide your source of information.
Now tell us where is your source of information to backup your original
statement on 228 documents - "KMT maintained 228 documents well"?
>ROC uses taxpayer's money to pay for the tour while the US collects the
>admission. This is also one of the original reasons you complained in
>this thread, which made me quote the report from World Journal that
>actually half of the funding comes from the US side.
Did I say ROC paid *100%* of funding? In fact, ROC paid 8 million US
dollars for this tour. 3 million went to Metropolitan. And Metropolitan
Museum usually sell tickets for the special event (at least that's the
case two years ago).
I complained but I am not one of those protesters in Taiwan. But you
complained those protesters in Taiwan might have political motives
(close to the election day...blah blah) and blamed them "not well
informed".
Later you went on saying "ROC is looking for an excuse not to let ANY
artwork go overseas" and "there will be the third, fourth, or fifth
review meeting so eventually NO artwork will go overseas".
And your accusations are just too off-the-base unless you can backup
your accusation? But can you???
>Hmmmm, maybe no. Did ROC ask them to have a tour and they turned down
>ROC's request? The answer is "no", too.
So ROC did not request USA to have a tour in Taiwan. Why not?
Lourve Museum sent their stuff to Taiwan last year and has asked the
Palace Museum also send our stuff to France.
>> I did not say there is a big potato but you are the one mention "the
big
>> potato" and even made a comment on it. That's why I was asking you
>> "who's the big potato". Now are you telling me there is no bigger
potato
>> than Mr. Fung??? Or you did not kwow "the big potato" you were talking
>> about in your previous post??? ;)
>
>So what did you mean by "Mr. Fung is just a small potato"?
Errr... I thought you understood what I mean. Otherwise, why did you
reply to it and also mention "the big potato"?
"Mr. Fung is just a small potato" means Mr. Fung is not a decision maker
at Metroplitan due to his job title "Art Consultant" at Metropolitan.
Now tell us who's the big potato in your original reply? Can you?
>That's true. Without the tour fewer Americans know where Taiwan is.
>Making people aware of Taiwan's existence is definitely a plus for
>diplomacy and public relationships.
Hmmm... In your first reply, didnt you insist that this tour has nothing
to do with diplomacy but now you tell us the tour is a plus for diplomacy.
Another contradiction from you? ;)
Tung-Chiang Yang
> Sorry I only said "I heard KMT maintained CKS' documents well" and
> provided my source of information. And I never said "I heard KMT
> maintained the treasure well" as you claimed, see your problem! ;)
That might be true that you did not clearly specify the target you are
describing, and that is the reason why I added a parenthesis around
"treasure". Hmmm, O.K. Either I don't read English well, or you don't
write English well, or both.
> Then you replied with "I heard KMT maintained the 228 document well"
> but up to now you are unable to provide your source of information.
I heard.
> Now tell us where is your source of information to backup your original
> statement on 228 documents - "KMT maintained 228 documents well"?
I heard.
> Did I say ROC paid *100%* of funding? In fact, ROC paid 8 million US
> dollars for this tour. 3 million went to Metropolitan. And Metropolitan
> Museum usually sell tickets for the special event (at least that's the
> case two years ago).
So?
> I complained but I am not one of those protesters in Taiwan. But you
> complained those protesters in Taiwan might have political motives
> (close to the election day...blah blah) and blamed them "not well
> informed".
I really don't know if it is politcally related, but when people
complaining that ROC government is using these artwork for diplomatic
purpose, don't you think there is no political motive behind that?
Even DPP Vice President Candidate Mr. Hsieh also criticized the decision
making mechanism for this exhibition. You know, strictly speaking, for
TI people, having such comments is rare.
> Later you went on saying "ROC is looking for an excuse not to let ANY
> artwork go overseas" and "there will be the third, fourth, or fifth
> review meeting so eventually NO artwork will go overseas".
> And your accusations are just too off-the-base unless you can backup
> your accusation? But can you???
I did say this :) If these protesters want, they can have one seminar
after another to eventually bar any artworks for exhibition. When
Ministry of Education formed some committee to investigate the artworks'
condition, they demand to join the investigation. Do they have the
right?
One of NP's newly elected legislator, Ms. CHU, Huei-liang, worked at
National Palace Museum and took part in the preparation of this
exhibition. What did she say about this exhibition after she was
elected?
> >Hmmmm, maybe no. Did ROC ask them to have a tour and they turned down
> >ROC's request? The answer is "no", too.
> So ROC did not request USA to have a tour in Taiwan. Why not?
Why not? When you become the head of National Palace Museum, you can
request that, but right now don't blame the US ( in fact, Metropolitan
Museum of Art ) for requesting exhibition on Chinese treasures but stingy
to offer something in return.
Strictly speaking, Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City is a
civilian organization, while National Palace Museum is a branch of the
government. Keep this in mind. Therefore, ROC is related to National
Palace Museum while the US is not directly related to Metropolitan Museum
of Art.
> Lourve Museum sent their stuff to Taiwan last year and has asked the
> Palace Museum also send our stuff to France.
So this time National Palace Museum did not ask this. Fire Mr. Chin,
Hsiao-yi, head of National Palace Museum.
> Errr... I thought you understood what I mean. Otherwise, why did you
> reply to it and also mention "the big potato"?
> "Mr. Fung is just a small potato" means Mr. Fung is not a decision maker
> at Metroplitan due to his job title "Art Consultant" at Metropolitan.
> Now tell us who's the big potato in your original reply? Can you?
You said Mr. Fung is not a decision maker at Metropolitan Museum, then
tell us who is behind him.
It was not I who used "potato", and I believe it is your work to tell us
why you implied someone behind Mr. Fung.
> >That's true. Without the tour fewer Americans know where Taiwan is.
> >Making people aware of Taiwan's existence is definitely a plus for
> >diplomacy and public relationships.
> Hmmm... In your first reply, didnt you insist that this tour has nothing
> to do with diplomacy but now you tell us the tour is a plus for diplomacy.
> Another contradiction from you? ;)
You work for your idealism but not for the money. However, receiving
some payments is a plus.
Do you call this a contradiction?
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Feb 6, 1996
Boulder912
>
>That might be true that you did not clearly specify the target you are
>describing, and that is the reason why I added a parenthesis around
>"treasure". Hmmm, O.K. Either I don't read English well, or you don't
>write English well, or both.
You asked for organizing the protest for CKS' documents and I replied
with "I heard KMT maintained them well". It could not be more clear
but you memory did not serve you well. Blame your memory not English. ;)
>> Then you replied with "I heard KMT maintained the 228 document well"
>> but up to now you are unable to provide your source of information.
>
>I heard.
>> Now tell us where is your source of information to backup your original
>> statement on 228 documents - "KMT maintained 228 documents well"?
>
>I heard.
What's your source of information to back up your "heard" - "KMT
maintained 228 documents well"??? From your imagination? ;)
>> Did I say ROC paid *100%* of funding? In fact, ROC paid 8 million US
>> dollars for this tour. 3 million went to Metropolitan. And
Metropolitan
>> Museum usually sell tickets for the special event (at least that's the
>> case two years ago).
>
>So?
So ROC sponsors the tour and the Metropolitan collects the admission.
So why did you complain the above statement?
>I really don't know if it is politcally related, but when people
>complaining that ROC government is using these artwork for diplomatic
>purpose, don't you think there is no political motive behind that?
Mr. Chin's statement, diplomacy is the one of reasons behind the tour
have confirmed our suspecsion.
>Even DPP Vice President Candidate Mr. Hsieh also criticized the decision
>making mechanism for this exhibition. You know, strictly speaking, for
>TI people, having such comments is rare.
Are you saying they can not criticize the government during the election
period???
>I did say this :) If these protesters want, they can have one seminar
>after another to eventually bar any artworks for exhibition.
Here we go again. Use your imagination to accuse people??? Sorry, the
protest only targeted 27 restricted artworks but not all 475 artworks.
Hey, tell us why you think "ROC is looking for an excuse not to let ANY
artwork go overseas" and "There will be the third, fourth... review
meeting so eventually NO artwork will go overseas"? Or it's just your
style - say something out of nothing? ;)
>When
>Ministry of Education formed some committee to investigate the artworks'
>condition, they demand to join the investigation. Do they have the
>right?
The 228 victim families asked to join the 228 compensation committee
and the government let them join. The protesters asked to join the
committee, what's wrong with "asking"? Of course, Ministry of Education
has right to refuse them.
>Why not? When you become the head of National Palace Museum, you can
>request that, but right now don't blame the US ( in fact, Metropolitan
>Museum of Art ) for requesting exhibition on Chinese treasures but stingy
>to offer something in return.
Did I blame the US? Except for Mr. Fung's contradicted statement,
I dont see Metropolitan Museum did anything wrong.
But ROC has sent the national treasures to the US twice but did not ask
American museums send their stuff to Taiwan.
>Strictly speaking, Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City is a
>civilian organization, while National Palace Museum is a branch of the
>government. Keep this in mind. Therefore, ROC is related to National
>Palace Museum while the US is not directly related to Metropolitan Museum
>of Art.
There should have agreement between museums for mutual cultural exchange.
Dont you agree?
>You said Mr. Fung is not a decision maker at Metropolitan Museum, then
>tell us who is behind him.
No one behind him but someone above him. ;) Director of Metropolitan
Museum is one above him.
>It was not I who used "potato", and I believe it is your work to tell us
>why you implied someone behind Mr. Fung.
It's you replied with "the big potato" and even with a comment on it.
Now you could not tell us who's this "big potato"? Or you did not know
what you were talking about? ;)
>You work for your idealism but not for the money. However, receiving
>some payments is a plus.
>
>Do you call this a contradiction?
Mr. Chin, director of the Palace Museum said last week that the diplomacy
is one of reasons behind this tour. But in your first reply you insisted
that the tour has nothing to do with diplomacy.
Remind you that some of funding for the tour came from Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of ROC.
Tell us if Mr. Chin's statement has contradicted to yours? Or do you want
to change your original statement? ;)
Tung-Chiang Yang
> >That might be true that you did not clearly specify the target you are
> >describing, and that is the reason why I added a parenthesis around
> >"treasure". Hmmm, O.K. Either I don't read English well, or you don't
> >write English well, or both.
> You asked for organizing the protest for CKS' documents and I replied
> with "I heard KMT maintained them well". It could not be more clear
> but you memory did not serve you well. Blame your memory not English. ;)
Oh, I see. When I said "I heard KMT maintained the 228 documents well",
you asked me to provide my source of information.
When you said "I heard KMT maintained the CKS' documents well",
you don't ask yourself to provide your source of information.
Thanks for enlightening me.
> What's your source of information to back up your "heard" - "KMT
> maintained 228 documents well"??? From your imagination? ;)
See above :)
> So ROC sponsors the tour and the Metropolitan collects the admission.
> So why did you complain the above statement?
Yes, there is a mistake. I thought you should say ROC COsponsors the
tour.
> Mr. Chin's statement, diplomacy is the one of reasons behind the tour
> have confirmed our suspecsion.
Is he minister of Foreign Affairs?
> >Even DPP Vice President Candidate Mr. Hsieh also criticized the decision
> >making mechanism for this exhibition. You know, strictly speaking, for
> >TI people, having such comments is rare.
> Are you saying they can not criticize the government during the election
> period???
Nope. As a strong TI supporter, it is natural for him to say "these
artworks went abroad 50 years ago".
> >I did say this :) If these protesters want, they can have one seminar
> >after another to eventually bar any artworks for exhibition.
> Here we go again. Use your imagination to accuse people??? Sorry, the
> protest only targeted 27 restricted artworks but not all 475 artworks.
Really? Is the number "27" showing up in the original protest? Please
quote the source and I will dig it out when I have some time free.
> Hey, tell us why you think "ROC is looking for an excuse not to let ANY
> artwork go overseas" and "There will be the third, fourth... review
> meeting so eventually NO artwork will go overseas"? Or it's just your
> style - say something out of nothing? ;)
Well, from your "I think KMT maintained the CKS' documents well", we know
you are also saying something out of nothing, if I belong to that
category.
> The 228 victim families asked to join the 228 compensation committee
> and the government let them join. The protesters asked to join the
> committee, what's wrong with "asking"? Of course, Ministry of Education
> has right to refuse them.
There is nothing wrong with "asking", but when the committee was formed,
they accused some of the MOE committee members are students of a guy
working in Metropolitan Museum of Art and they were not eligible for the
reevaluation.
Of course, again, they have the right to criticize.
> Did I blame the US? Except for Mr. Fung's contradicted statement,
> I dont see Metropolitan Museum did anything wrong.
> But ROC has sent the national treasures to the US twice but did not ask
> American museums send their stuff to Taiwan.
Then blame ROC officials.
> >Strictly speaking, Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City is a
> >civilian organization, while National Palace Museum is a branch of the
> >government. Keep this in mind. Therefore, ROC is related to National
> >Palace Museum while the US is not directly related to Metropolitan Museum
> >of Art.
> There should have agreement between museums for mutual cultural exchange.
> Dont you agree?
I won't disagree, but if ROC never raised this request, then ROC NPM is
to blame, not MMA.
> >You said Mr. Fung is not a decision maker at Metropolitan Museum, then
> >tell us who is behind him.
> No one behind him but someone above him. ;) Director of Metropolitan
> Museum is one above him.
So you meant Director of Metropolitan Museum of Art is the big potato.
Thanks for confessing this after so many rounds of talking nonsense.
> It's you replied with "the big potato" and even with a comment on it.
> Now you could not tell us who's this "big potato"? Or you did not know
> what you were talking about? ;)
When you used "a small potato", there are only two possibilities:
(1) you implied there is a bigger one behind, and
(2) "a small potato" is a depreciating term for you, like "you are sh*t"
or something similar.
> Mr. Chin, director of the Palace Museum said last week that the diplomacy
> is one of reasons behind this tour. But in your first reply you insisted
> that the tour has nothing to do with diplomacy.
Is he minister of Foreign Affairs?
> Remind you that some of funding for the tour came from Ministry of Foreign
> Affairs of ROC.
Hmmm, what does the legislators say about this?
> Tell us if Mr. Chin's statement has contradicted to yours? Or do you want
> to change your original statement? ;)
I just asked "is he minister of Foreign Affairs?"
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Feb 8, 1996
Boulder912
>
>Oh, I see. When I said "I heard KMT maintained the 228 documents well",
>you asked me to provide my source of information.
Yes, what's your source of information? I have asked you several times
but got no reply.
>When you said "I heard KMT maintained the CKS' documents well",
>you don't ask yourself to provide your source of information.
Your bad memory again or attempt to shift the attention? I have prvoided
the source of information. Dig out the old post.
Now tell us what's your source of information to back up your "heard"
- "KMT maintained the 228 documents well".
>Yes, there is a mistake. I thought you should say ROC COsponsors the
>tour.
No problem if you insist. ;)
ROC cosponsors the tour and the Metropolitan Museum collects the
admission.
>> Mr. Chin's statement, diplomacy is the one of reasons behind the tour
>> have confirmed our suspecsion.
>
>Is he minister of Foreign Affairs?
He and Ministry of Foreign Affairs are involved in this tour. Apparently,
he
must know the diplomacy is one of reasons behind the tour, otherwise,
he wouldnt have said that.
>Nope. As a strong TI supporter, it is natural for him to say "these
>artworks went abroad 50 years ago".
Did Mr. Shieh Chien-Tien say that? Dont put your words to his mouth.
Remind you that DPP also includes Kimen and Matzu as part of Taiwan's
territory.
>> Here we go again. Use your imagination to accuse people??? Sorry, the
>> protest only targeted 27 restricted artworks but not all 475 artworks.
>
>Really? Is the number "27" showing up in the original protest? Please
>quote the source and I will dig it out when I have some time free.
Yes, the protest organization is called "Protect the Restriected Artworks
Action Committee". Only 27 pieces belong to the the restricted items.
Dig out the old World Journal.
>> Hey, tell us why you think "ROC is looking for an excuse not to let ANY
>> artwork go overseas" and "There will be the third, fourth... review
>> meeting so eventually NO artwork will go overseas"? Or it's just your
>> style - say something out of nothing? ;)
>
>Well, from your "I think KMT maintained the CKS' documents well", we know
>you are also saying something out of nothing, if I belong to that
>category.
Sorry, I have provided my source of information to back up my statement
- "KMT maintained CKS' documents well". Dig out the old post.
Now please tell us why you say
1. KMT maintained the 228 documents well.
2. ROC is looking for an excuse not to let ANY artwork go overseas.
3. There will be the third, fourth... review meeting so eventually
NO artwork will go overseas.
Can you??? ;)
>There is nothing wrong with "asking", but when the committee was formed,
>they accused some of the MOE committee members are students of a guy
>working in Metropolitan Museum of Art and they were not eligible for the
>reevaluation.
What's wrong with "asking" to remove those people from the review meeting?
Of course, Ministry of Education can refuse them.
>> Did I blame the US? Except for Mr. Fung's contradicted statement,
>> I dont see Metropolitan Museum did anything wrong.
>
>> But ROC has sent the national treasures to the US twice but did not ask
>> American museums send their stuff to Taiwan.
>
>Then blame ROC officials.
Right.
>> There should have agreement between museums for mutual cultural
exchange.
>> Dont you agree?
>
>I won't disagree, but if ROC never raised this request, then ROC NPM is
>to blame, not MMA.
Right.
>> >You said Mr. Fung is not a decision maker at Metropolitan Museum, then
>> >tell us who is behind him.
>
>> No one behind him but someone above him. ;) Director of Metropolitan
>> Museum is one above him.
>
>So you meant Director of Metropolitan Museum of Art is the big potato.
>Thanks for confessing this after so many rounds of talking nonsense.
Did I say that? Sorry I never mentioned "the big potato" but you are
the one mentioned "the big potato" and even made a comment on it in
your previous post.
So who's the big potato you were talking about? Or you didnt know
when you mentioned "the big potato"? ;)
>When you used "a small potato", there are only two possibilities:
>(1) you implied there is a bigger one behind, and
>(2) "a small potato" is a depreciating term for you, like "you are sh*t"
> or something similar.
I have explained what the small potato means "non-descison-maker" so dont
twist it to shift the attention. ;) And just tell us who's the big potato
you were talking about in your previous post? Or you did not know? ;)
> Mr. Chin, director of the Palace Museum said last week that the
diplomacy
> is one of reasons behind this tour. But in your first reply you
insisted
> that the tour has nothing to do with diplomacy.
>
>Is he minister of Foreign Affairs?
See above.
>> Remind you that some of funding for the tour came from Ministry of
Foreign
>> Affairs of ROC.
>
>Hmmm, what does the legislators say about this?
Some of legislators criticized it.
>> Tell us if Mr. Chin's statement has contradicted to yours? Or do you
want
>> to change your original statement? ;)
>
>I just asked "is he minister of Foreign Affairs?"
See above..
So portion of the funding for the tour came from Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of ROC that proves the diplomacy is one of reasons behind this
tour. So do you want to withdraw your statement - "Diplomacy has nothing
to do with the artwork tour"? ;)
Tung-Chiang Yang
Boulder912 (bould...@aol.com) wrote:
> Tung-Chiang Yang wrote:
> >Oh, I see. When I said "I heard KMT maintained the 228 documents well",
> >you asked me to provide my source of information.
> Yes, what's your source of information? I have asked you several times
> but got no reply.
The conclusion is both of us cannot provide the sources.
> >When you said "I heard KMT maintained the CKS' documents well",
> >you don't ask yourself to provide your source of information.
> Your bad memory again or attempt to shift the attention? I have prvoided
> the source of information. Dig out the old post.
They expired. Post them again.
> Now tell us what's your source of information to back up your "heard"
> - "KMT maintained the 228 documents well".
Didn't KMT officials say that? Or did they say "We did not maintain the
documents well"?
> >Yes, there is a mistake. I thought you should say ROC COsponsors the
> >tour.
> No problem if you insist. ;)
I don't insist. It is a truth. Face it.
> ROC cosponsors the tour and the Metropolitan Museum collects the
> admission.
Maybe. Please find an accountant to supervise MMA's budget to see if
they take all these money.
> He and Ministry of Foreign Affairs are involved in this tour. Apparently,
> he
> must know the diplomacy is one of reasons behind the tour, otherwise,
> he wouldnt have said that.
Let me tell you this. Anything dealing with foreign countries is related
to Foreign affairs. This includes the Rapid Transit in Taipei and weapon
sales.
However, whether something focuses on foreign affairs is another issue.
You cannot use a side effect as the main purpose.
> >Nope. As a strong TI supporter, it is natural for him to say "these
> >artworks went abroad 50 years ago".
> Did Mr. Shieh Chien-Tien say that? Dont put your words to his mouth.
I said "it is natural for him to say" but not "he said". You need to
take ESL 33C.
( such an example is seen in the magazine "The Journalist" ).
> Remind you that DPP also includes Kimen and Matzu as part of Taiwan's
> territory.
This is proposed, but not passed inside DPP now. Don't put words into
DPP's mouth.
> Yes, the protest organization is called "Protect the Restriected Artworks
> Action Committee". Only 27 pieces belong to the the restricted items.
> Dig out the old World Journal.
Are you telling us that "27" is covered in their protest at first? You
mean, they said "this artwork cannot go for exhibition, that cannot.....
all of them adds up to 27."
Hmmm, it seems only these 27 stuffs are national treasures while all
others are not. Then the organization should use a new name
"Protect the 27 Restricted Artworks Action Committee".
> Sorry, I have provided my source of information to back up my statement
> - "KMT maintained CKS' documents well". Dig out the old post.
They expired. Alta Vista cannot find them. Post them again.
> Now please tell us why you say
> 1. KMT maintained the 228 documents well.
I said "I heard".
> 2. ROC is looking for an excuse not to let ANY artwork go overseas.
Maybe I should say "some people in ROC". I apologize for this
misunderstanding.
> 3. There will be the third, fourth... review meeting so eventually
> NO artwork will go overseas.
> Can you??? ;)
Sure. I have explained above.
> >There is nothing wrong with "asking", but when the committee was formed,
> >they accused some of the MOE committee members are students of a guy
> >working in Metropolitan Museum of Art and they were not eligible for the
> >reevaluation.
> What's wrong with "asking" to remove those people from the review meeting?
> Of course, Ministry of Education can refuse them.
Even when several legislators and presidential candidates joined this
force? Can Ministry of Education refuse them?
> Did I say that? Sorry I never mentioned "the big potato" but you are
> the one mentioned "the big potato" and even made a comment on it in
> your previous post.
> So who's the big potato you were talking about? Or you didnt know
> when you mentioned "the big potato"? ;)
When you said "a small potato", you implied there is a big potato, or
you can simply say "a potato".
I believe the English capability for an AoL should be good enough.
> >When you used "a small potato", there are only two possibilities:
> >(1) you implied there is a bigger one behind, and
> >(2) "a small potato" is a depreciating term for you, like "you are sh*t"
> > or something similar.
> I have explained what the small potato means "non-descison-maker" so dont
> twist it to shift the attention. ;) And just tell us who's the big potato
> you were talking about in your previous post? Or you did not know? ;)
So, you said Mr. Fung was just a "non-decision-maker", then tell us who
is the decision maker. I did not know what you are talking about. You
know, AoL is well-known for their posting quality.
> >Is he minister of Foreign Affairs?
> See above.
No.
> >Hmmm, what does the legislators say about this?
> Some of legislators criticized it.
And then? They forgot it?
> >I just asked "is he minister of Foreign Affairs?"
> See above..
And your answer is "no". You know that.
> So portion of the funding for the tour came from Ministry of Foreign
> Affairs of ROC that proves the diplomacy is one of reasons behind this
> tour. So do you want to withdraw your statement - "Diplomacy has nothing
> to do with the artwork tour"? ;)
You work for your idealism and your interests but you also receive the
wages. Do you want to say "I chose my job not for the money?"
If you answer "yes" then I reply "yes" with your logic. Your problem is
using side effect as the main purpose.
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Feb 11, 1996
Boulder912
>>
>> >Oh, I see. When I said "I heard KMT maintained the 228 documents
well",
>> >you asked me to provide my source of information.
>
> Yes, what's your source of information? I have asked you several times
> but got no reply.
>
>The conclusion is both of us cannot provide the sources.
I have provided the source of information - World Journal. But you
could not. That's why you requested stop to discuss this one in
your previous post. ;)
>> Now tell us what's your source of information to back up your "heard"
>> - "KMT maintained the 228 documents well".
>>
>Didn't KMT officials say that? Or did they say "We did not maintain the
>documents well"?
You tell us. Since you are the one said that "I heard KMT maintained
the 228 documents well".
Tell us WHERE did you heard it?
>> ROC cosponsors the tour and the Metropolitan Museum collects the
>> admission.
>
>Maybe. Please find an accountant to supervise MMA's budget to see if
>they take all these money.
"Maybe" is a good answer. At least now you know Metropolitan sells
tickets for the special events. ;)
>> He and Ministry of Foreign Affairs are involved in this tour.
Apparently,
>> he
>> must know the diplomacy is one of reasons behind the tour, otherwise,
>> he wouldnt have said that.
>
>Let me tell you this. Anything dealing with foreign countries is related
>to Foreign affairs. This includes the Rapid Transit in Taipei and weapon
>sales.
Hmmm.... Ministry of Foreign Affairs was involved in Rapid Transit in
Taipei??? Can you be more specific? We are interested in your "story".
;)
Anyway, portion of funding for the artwork tour came from Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of ROC.
>> >Nope. As a strong TI supporter, it is natural for him to say "these
>> >artworks went abroad 50 years ago".
>
>> Did Mr. Shieh Chien-Tien say that? Dont put your words to his mouth.
>
>I said "it is natural for him to say" but not "he said". You need to
>take ESL 33C.
If Mr. Shieh Chien-Tien did not say that, then you should not say "it is
natural for him to say that". That's attempt to smear.
And remind you that Ah-Bien saluted the ROC flag but not many TIers
would do that. Think about it before you stereotyping people.
>> Remind you that DPP also includes Kimen and Matzu as part of Taiwan's
>> territory.
>
>This is proposed, but not passed inside DPP now. Don't put words into
>DPP's mouth.
Tell us when did DPP say they PROPOSE Kimen and Matzu is part of Taiwan's
territory. DPP says Kimen and Matzu IS part of Taiwan's territory.
Shih Ming-De and Shieh Chen-Tien all told Kimen and Matzu residents in
last legislative election. So dont twist their words.
>> Yes, the protest organization is called "Protect the Restriected
Artworks
>> Action Committee". Only 27 pieces belong to the the restricted items.
>>
>> Dig out the old World Journal.
>
>Are you telling us that "27" is covered in their protest at first? You
>mean, they said "this artwork cannot go for exhibition, that cannot.....
>all of them adds up to 27."
>
>Hmmm, it seems only these 27 stuffs are national treasures while all
>others are not. Then the organization should use a new name
>"Protect the 27 Restricted Artworks Action Committee".
Poor baby, has to twist to cover up your embarrassment. ;)
That's why you had problem with the protest from day 1 and talked those
nonsense, e.g., ROC is looking for an excuse not to let ANY artworks go
overseas. Because you did not know the protest was focusing on those 27
restricted artworks.
Next time you really should read the news carefully before you open the
mouth. ;)
BTW, you said you will dig out the old newspapers when you have free
time. I think you should do it for sake of your misunderstanding.
No wonder why you said "There will be third, fourth review meeting
eventually NO artwork will go overseas"..... ;)
>> Now please tell us why you say
>
>> 1. KMT maintained the 228 documents well.
>
>I said "I heard".
"Heard from where"? Are you telling us you dont even remember WHERE
did you hear from??? ;)
>>> 2. ROC is looking for an excuse not to let ANY artwork go overseas.
>>
>>Maybe I should say "some people in ROC". I apologize for this
>misunderstanding.
You apology accepted at least ROC's reputation is saved due to your
apology.
> 3. There will be the third, fourth... review meeting so eventually
> NO artwork will go overseas.
Can you tell us why did you say "There will be the third, fourth... review
meeting so eventually NO artwork will go overseas".
>Even when several legislators and presidential candidates joined this
>force? Can Ministry of Education refuse them?
Of course, Ministry of Education can refuse them.
>> Did I say that? Sorry I never mentioned "the big potato" but you are
>> the one mentioned "the big potato" and even made a comment on it in
>> your previous post.
>
>> So who's the big potato you were talking about? Or you didnt know
>> when you mentioned "the big potato"? ;)
>
>When you said "a small potato", you implied there is a big potato, or
>you can simply say "a potato".
There is no implication. But you replied with "the big potato" and
even with a comment on it. Dont you have guts to tell us who is
"the big potato" in your previous post??? ;)
Now, I want to ask you this again:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of ROC contributed 3 million US dollars to
the funding for the tour that indicates the diplomacy is one of reasons
behind this tour. And lately, Mr. Chin, director of the Palace Museum
also said the diplomay is one of the reasons behind the tour. So,
Mr. Yang do you want to withdraw your statement - "Diplomacy has nothing
to do with the artwork tour"??? ;)
Tung-Chiang Yang
> I have provided the source of information - World Journal. But you
> could not. That's why you requested stop to discuss this one in
> your previous post. ;)
Wow, you provided the source of information -- World Journal. Then I
can provide my source of information -- newspapers in Taiwan.
If you don't want to provide the date, the page of World Journal you are
talking about, don't call it a reference.
> You tell us. Since you are the one said that "I heard KMT maintained
> the 228 documents well".
> Tell us WHERE did you heard it?
newspapers in Taiwan :)
> >Maybe. Please find an accountant to supervise MMA's budget to see if
> >they take all these money.
> "Maybe" is a good answer. At least now you know Metropolitan sells
> tickets for the special events. ;)
However, accusing them for taking all the admission before your
accountant works on that might be a libel.
> >Let me tell you this. Anything dealing with foreign countries is related
> >to Foreign affairs. This includes the Rapid Transit in Taipei and weapon
> >sales.
> Hmmm.... Ministry of Foreign Affairs was involved in Rapid Transit in
> Taipei??? Can you be more specific? We are interested in your "story".
> ;)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs can "suggest" which country should be favored
in an arms deal or the Rapid Transit system, though it does not have the
final say.
> Anyway, portion of funding for the artwork tour came from Ministry of
> Foreign Affairs of ROC.
So? When Taipei Municipal Girls' High School sent their students for
Pasadena Rose Parade, Taipei City government also provides some fundings.
Do you want to say "this parade is just for Taipei's fame"?
Again, you are using "side effects" for "main purpose".
> If Mr. Shieh Chien-Tien did not say that, then you should not say "it is
> natural for him to say that". That's attempt to smear.
Who is "Shieh Chien-tien"?
> And remind you that Ah-Bien saluted the ROC flag but not many TIers
> would do that. Think about it before you stereotyping people.
I would also remind you that he kept his mouth shut on Jan. 1st when
others were singing the National Anthem.
Nevertheless, as a Taipei citizen, I would still vote for him. This is
a side issue.
> Tell us when did DPP say they PROPOSE Kimen and Matzu is part of Taiwan's
> territory. DPP says Kimen and Matzu IS part of Taiwan's territory.
> Shih Ming-De and Shieh Chen-Tien all told Kimen and Matzu residents in
> last legislative election. So dont twist their words.
Could you tell us why Kingman and Matzu are not included in DPP Party
Flag?
> Poor baby, has to twist to cover up your embarrassment. ;)
> That's why you had problem with the protest from day 1 and talked those
> nonsense, e.g., ROC is looking for an excuse not to let ANY artworks go
> overseas. Because you did not know the protest was focusing on those 27
> restricted artworks.
> Next time you really should read the news carefully before you open the
> mouth. ;)
I did not open my mouth when I type. Maybe you do ;)
> BTW, you said you will dig out the old newspapers when you have free
> time. I think you should do it for sake of your misunderstanding.
You provide reference on your own, and I work out mine. That is fair.
> No wonder why you said "There will be third, fourth review meeting
> eventually NO artwork will go overseas"..... ;)
Sigh. When people have problems understanding English, they accuse
others.
> "Heard from where"? Are you telling us you dont even remember WHERE
> did you hear from??? ;)
"newspapers in Taiwan" :)
> You apology accepted at least ROC's reputation is saved due to your
> apology.
I am just a citizen of ROC. Don't make me so important.
Oh, maybe you are a US citizen. Sorry about that.
> > 3. There will be the third, fourth... review meeting so eventually
> > NO artwork will go overseas.
> Can you tell us why did you say "There will be the third, fourth... review
> meeting so eventually NO artwork will go overseas".
That is the protest's goal, isn't it?
> >Even when several legislators and presidential candidates joined this
> >force? Can Ministry of Education refuse them?
> Of course, Ministry of Education can refuse them.
Just like what you are doing now :)
> There is no implication. But you replied with "the big potato" and
> even with a comment on it. Dont you have guts to tell us who is
> "the big potato" in your previous post??? ;)
The big potato is YOU, dear :)
> Now, I want to ask you this again:
> Ministry of Foreign Affairs of ROC contributed 3 million US dollars to
> the funding for the tour that indicates the diplomacy is one of reasons
> behind this tour. And lately, Mr. Chin, director of the Palace Museum
> also said the diplomay is one of the reasons behind the tour. So,
> Mr. Yang do you want to withdraw your statement - "Diplomacy has nothing
> to do with the artwork tour"??? ;)
Without the tour, ROC diplomacy is not an issue for the exhibitions.
With the tour and later it got cancelled, then ROC's fame is in jeopardy.
Now tell us how you make a side effect as the main purpose.
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Feb 12, 1996
Mark Lee
>Boulder912 (bould...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>> I have provided the source of information - World Journal. But you
>> could not. That's why you requested stop to discuss this one in
>> your previous post. ;)
>
>Wow, you provided the source of information -- World Journal. Then I
>can provide my source of information -- newspapers in Taiwan.
>
I hate to burst your bubbles, but none of the newspapers you guys quoted
really gave you the complete story. Most newspapers in Taiwan (and World
Journal) don't provided unbiased reporting. Of course, all news reportings
are based on subjective interpretation of media events; but Editors of
Taiwan's newspapers do not enjoy the kind of power editors in US have.
They will do whatever the owner of the newspaper tells them to report.
As a result, you have really distorted reporting.
To make things worse, most reporters do not seem to have the professionalism
(and integrity) to do honest reporting. I think with time we will see
improvement in this area. Don't forget that freedom of press is still in
its infancy stage here in Taiwan.
Just to give you an example of incomplete reporting, none of the newspapers in
Taiwan reported much about past tours of our national treasures. If they
do spend time looking into past tours, they will find that some of the toured
artworks got damaged during the trip. But most of the reports I read were so
politically orientd that they provided very little in-depth look of the real
issue: how much risk are we subjecting our national treasures to during
this trip?
Boulder912
>
>Wow, you provided the source of information -- World Journal. Then I
>can provide my source of information -- newspapers in Taiwan.
Good, you finally making progress. ;) It is not embarrassing to say you
heard from the newspapers but it's embarrassing to fabricate "the story".
Hope you understand. ;)
Now tell us which newspaper did you read about "KMT maintained the 228
documents well"?
>However, accusing them for taking all the admission before your
>accountant works on that might be a libel.
I only said they *collect* the admission. I dont know if they will keep
*all* the admission. You need a lawyer defend you.
BTW, what's your proof they dont keep *all* the admission???
>> >Let me tell you this. Anything dealing with foreign countries is
related
>> >to Foreign affairs. This includes the Rapid Transit in Taipei and
weapon
>> >sales.
>
>> Hmmm.... Ministry of Foreign Affairs was involved in Rapid Transit in
>> Taipei??? Can you be more specific? We are interested in your
"story".
>> ;)
>
>Ministry of Foreign Affairs can "suggest" which country should be favored
>in an arms deal or the Rapid Transit system, though it does not have the
>final say.
Errr... can suggest? You just told us Ministry of Foreign Affairs of ROC
was involved in the Rapid Transit System in Taipei. Could you tell us
what Ministry of Foreign Affairs has involved in Rapid Transit in Taipei?
And why involved? Can you give us a detailed "report"? We are very
interested. ;)
>So? When Taipei Municipal Girls' High School sent their students for
>Pasadena Rose Parade, Taipei City government also provides some fundings.
>Do you want to say "this parade is just for Taipei's fame"?
Sorry I never said the tour is *just for* the diplomacy. You need to
take ESL class and Logic 101. ;)
>> And remind you that Ah-Bien saluted the ROC flag but not many TIers
>> would do that. Think about it before you stereotyping people.
>
>I would also remind you that he kept his mouth shut on Jan. 1st when
>others were singing the National Anthem.
Well, at least you can not say "it is natural for him" not to salute
the ROC flag? Right? ;)
>Could you tell us why Kingman and Matzu are not included in DPP Party
>Flag?
What's Kingman? ;)
Anyway, could you tell us why Kinmen and Matzu are not included in
KMT's new slogan "Republic of China on Taiwan".
Could you tell us when did DPP *propose* Kinmen and Maztu is a part
of Taiwan's territory? Or are you saying in DPP's mind, at present,
Kinmen and Matzu is not a part of Taiwan's territory???
>> You apology accepted at least ROC's reputation is saved due to your
>> apology.
>
>I am just a citizen of ROC. Don't make me so important.
You important? Nah. Maybe you are "important" on SCT. ;)
Anyway, glad to hear your apology even it has to take a while for you
admit your mistake. ;)
>> Can you tell us why did you say "There will be the third, fourth...
review
>> meeting so eventually NO artwork will go overseas".
>
>That is the protest's goal, isn't it?
No, the protest's goal is to protect the 27 restricted artworks.
But your goal is to smear the protest.
Maybe you want those 27 restrcicted to go overseas and dont care how
fragile they are???
>> There is no implication. But you replied with "the big potato" and
>> even with a comment on it. Dont you have guts to tell us who is
>> "the big potato" in your previous post??? ;)
>
>The big potato is YOU, dear :)
Good, finally you have guts to reply. ;)
Then tell us in your previous post you said the big potato will benefit
even more... Tell us what will I benefit "even more"? ;) Up to now,
I have not received a penny from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of ROC. ;)
>> Ministry of Foreign Affairs of ROC contributed 3 million US dollars to
>> the funding for the tour that indicates the diplomacy is one of reasons
>> behind this tour. And lately, Mr. Chin, director of the Palace Museum
>> also said the diplomay is one of the reasons behind the tour. So,
>> Mr. Yang do you want to withdraw your statement - "Diplomacy has
nothing
>> to do with the artwork tour"??? ;)
>
>Without the tour, ROC diplomacy is not an issue for the exhibitions.
Do you mean with the tour, ROC diplomacy is an issue for the exhibitions?
In other words, ROC diplomacy is indeed one of reasons behind the tour?
Is that what are you trying to say? ;)
Tung-Chiang Yang
> I hate to burst your bubbles, but none of the newspapers you guys quoted
> really gave you the complete story. Most newspapers in Taiwan (and World
> Journal) don't provided unbiased reporting. Of course, all news reportings
> are based on subjective interpretation of media events; but Editors of
> Taiwan's newspapers do not enjoy the kind of power editors in US have.
> They will do whatever the owner of the newspaper tells them to report.
> As a result, you have really distorted reporting.
Thanks for bursting our bubbles, but
(1) World Journal is not published in Taiwan. Yes, it is closely related
to the United Daily News, but they are not equal. Does United Daily
News in Taiwan use a few pages on Mainland China and Hongkong? I
guess not.
(2) World Journal is definitely biased, but it is much better than Chiao2
Bao2 ( Newspapers for Overseas Chinese, published by PRC related
publishers ) and People's Daily.
> To make things worse, most reporters do not seem to have the professionalism
> (and integrity) to do honest reporting. I think with time we will see
> improvement in this area. Don't forget that freedom of press is still in
> its infancy stage here in Taiwan.
That is a good news. At least the baby was born.
> Just to give you an example of incomplete reporting, none of the newspapers in
> Taiwan reported much about past tours of our national treasures. If they
> do spend time looking into past tours, they will find that some of the toured
> artworks got damaged during the trip. But most of the reports I read were so
> politically orientd that they provided very little in-depth look of the real
> issue: how much risk are we subjecting our national treasures to during
> this trip?
A problem in a democratic and capital-oriented society is, newspapers
only report things the readers are interested. When the heat wave
passes, the readers are not interested, and the newspapers are not
interested. When the presidential election campaigns and Strait crisis
cast a large shadow over the artworks, the latter can be temporarily
ignored.
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Feb 14, 1996
Te-Ming Peng
>I hate to burst your bubbles, but none of the newspapers you guys quoted
>really gave you the complete story. Most newspapers in Taiwan (and World
>Journal) don't provided unbiased reporting. Of course, all news reportings
>are based on subjective interpretation of media events; but Editors of
>Taiwan's newspapers do not enjoy the kind of power editors in US have.
>They will do whatever the owner of the newspaper tells them to report.
>As a result, you have really distorted reporting.
I don't know what exactly do you mean by "unbiased". World Daily, as
an subsidiary of United Daily, did report students and other social
groups' protest about the tour. It didn't "condemn" those protests,
and the reporters didn't put their own judgements either. They also
report government officials' response on those protests. What kind of
"unbiased" do you need?
I know you support TI, then let me ask you if the reporters just obey
the owners' words, do you also mean that the journalists from those
newspapers such as Freedom Times and others who support TI only listen
to their bosses? So their reports must be distorting ones?
Lilian Chung
TC, I suggest you not waste time with Boulder :) He doesn't
deserver your attention.
By the way, you might want to apologize for laughing at
America-on-Line users. That should be something you should
do as a gentleman.
Lilian
Mark Lee
>I don't know what exactly do you mean by "unbiased". World Daily, as
>an subsidiary of United Daily, did report students and other social
>groups' protest about the tour. It didn't "condemn" those protests,
>and the reporters didn't put their own judgements either. They also
>report government officials' response on those protests. What kind of
>"unbiased" do you need?
>
Unbiased reporting gives reader all the facts and let them be the judge.
I don't think World Daily, United Daily or any other newspaper in
Taiwan are really out there with the single purpose to serve the reader.
Note that I put all Taiwan newspapers (even the pro-TI ones) in this
category. I am not talking about any party preference here. I am
addressing the basic right of people to know the truth.
For example, you mentioned that World Daily/United Daily reported
all the protests and social gathering and they did not "put their own
judgement" into the reporting. Let's take a closer look at this incident.
The public outcry throughout this incident was well orchestrated by the NP
in an attempt to discredit KMT. I went to several of these rallies and
frankly none of the political figures there really cared about the artworks.
What you read in the papers were stand-up talk show put on by these
political figures.
What are the real issues in this incident? It's not about people protesting
the mishandling of our national treasures. It's about the mishandling of
our national treasures. Did any of the reports go into detail about how
these artworks were to be safeguarded? Did any of the reports go into
detail about how our artworks were currently be managed in the National
Palace Museum?
Do you really think that the outspoken political figures really understand
or appreciate the value of these artworks?
>I know you support TI, then let me ask you if the reporters just obey
>the owners' words, do you also mean that the journalists from those
>newspapers such as Freedom Times and others who support TI only listen
>to their bosses? So their reports must be distorting ones?
>
My support for TI does not influence my belief of freedom of press. I am
not singling out United Daily/World Daily at all. All the newspapers in
Taiwan are guilty of selective reporting. I may support TI but foremost
I support the people's right to know the truth. You may be against TI
but I also support your right to know the truth. :)
Te-Ming Peng
>Unbiased reporting gives reader all the facts and let them be the judge.
>I don't think World Daily, United Daily or any other newspaper in
>Taiwan are really out there with the single purpose to serve the reader.
>Note that I put all Taiwan newspapers (even the pro-TI ones) in this
>category. I am not talking about any party preference here. I am
>addressing the basic right of people to know the truth.
This probably makes the differences on the interpretation on
unbiasedness. I doubt that any newspapers can really present all the
"facts" to the readers. In my mind, the first requirement for
unbiasedness is balanced report. There is no doubt in my mind that
readers has "the right to know" as this is one of the most important
principle in journalism, however, "presenting all the facts" is very
hard for any journalist.
>For example, you mentioned that World Daily/United Daily reported
>all the protests and social gathering and they did not "put their own
>judgement" into the reporting. Let's take a closer look at this incident.
>The public outcry throughout this incident was well orchestrated by the NP
>in an attempt to discredit KMT. I went to several of these rallies and
>frankly none of the political figures there really cared about the artworks.
>What you read in the papers were stand-up talk show put on by these
>political figures.
Quite frankly, the impression I read from World Journal about this
matter is that it reports both sides' arguments, and I failed to find
if it biased toward any party or any one in this matter.
>What are the real issues in this incident? It's not about people protesting
>the mishandling of our national treasures. It's about the mishandling of
>our national treasures. Did any of the reports go into detail about how
>these artworks were to be safeguarded? Did any of the reports go into
>detail about how our artworks were currently be managed in the National
>Palace Museum?
I am not saying that the issue is about protest itself. I don't know
if you were a journalist before, but I did. Journalist constantly
faced a difficulty that government officials are genererally unwilling
to provide related information, as a consequence, reporters sometimes
have to do some educated guesses trying to dig out the news from
indirect sources or clues with very limited time (I was usually off
work at midnight and by the time I went to sleep, it would be 2 or 3
AM in the morning). Sometimes, my supervisors would question me the
reliability of the news I wanted to present. They would agree my
intention, but they might not agree with what I said because I did not
present enough hard evidences. In this case, they would rather not to
use it and that is not out of the concern of some political purposes.
>Do you really think that the outspoken political figures really understand
>or appreciate the value of these artworks?
I don't know, maybe or maybe not. While it is quite usual for
politician to make somethings on the newspapers (the same applies to
the politicians in US), they nonethelessly remind us soemthings we
might ignore. Judging from your post, it seems to me that it is NP who
challenged the necessity of the tour. If that is the case, I think it
is a good thing to let us think about this matter, disregardless of
their intentions or political standings, the same things also applies
to DPP who also raise some other issues constantly.
>My support for TI does not influence my belief of freedom of press. I am
>not singling out United Daily/World Daily at all. All the newspapers in
>Taiwan are guilty of selective reporting. I may support TI but foremost
>I support the people's right to know the truth. You may be against TI
>but I also support your right to know the truth. :)
Yes, I don't support TI, but that is not my original intention to ask
you that question, nor did I intend to pick the bone from the egg. One
should understand that making generalization out of an event which
itself is still in controversy might not be appropriate. That is what
I felt uncomfortable especially when you claimed that reporters listen
to the owners. If you argued the biasedness of three TV stations, then
I would agree with you 100% in the sense that they don't do balanced
reports. Personally, I think I myself have the reputation in the
forums constantly emphasizing the importance of freedom of speech, and
I would be disappointed if you believe that I am not into it :).
Te-Ming
Chang-Ping Lee
>
>Unbiased reporting gives reader all the facts and let them be the judge.
>I don't think World Daily, United Daily or any other newspaper in
>Taiwan are really out there with the single purpose to serve the reader.
>Note that I put all Taiwan newspapers (even the pro-TI ones) in this
>category. I am not talking about any party preference here. I am
>addressing the basic right of people to know the truth.
Truth? Have you seen the Japanese movie, Rashomon?
>The public outcry throughout this incident was well orchestrated by the NP
>in an attempt to discredit KMT. I went to several of these rallies and
>frankly none of the political figures there really cared about the artworks.
Any convincing argument/evidence to backup these strong accusations?
Don you think you are telling us the "truth"? :-)
Chang
Mark Lee
>In article <4g0qh6$7...@serv.hinet.net>, Mark Lee <m...@pc2.hinet.net> wrote:
>>
>>Unbiased reporting gives reader all the facts and let them be the judge.
>>I don't think World Daily, United Daily or any other newspaper in
>>Taiwan are really out there with the single purpose to serve the reader.
>>Note that I put all Taiwan newspapers (even the pro-TI ones) in this
>>category. I am not talking about any party preference here. I am
>>addressing the basic right of people to know the truth.
>
>Truth? Have you seen the Japanese movie, Rashomon?
>
Yes, one of my favorite Japanese movies. Truth, though difficult to attain,
is something we all strive for. I know it is difficult for newspaper to
present a multifaceted incident within such limited space, but I do question
if that is even a goal for the newspapers in Taiwan.
>
>>The public outcry throughout this incident was well orchestrated by the NP
>>in an attempt to discredit KMT. I went to several of these rallies and
>>frankly none of the political figures there really cared about the artworks.
>
>Any convincing argument/evidence to backup these strong accusations?
>
>Don you think you are telling us the "truth"? :-)
>
>Chang
The "truth" in this case is only limited to the activities that I have
attended. And all these rallies were organized by NP volunteers. The
keynote speakers in these events were mostly NP Legislators. These are
the truth as I know it. I might not have provided the balanced reporting
that Te-Ming Peng talked about, but for an amateur reporter, this will
do.
In a way, NP is doing the people in Taiwan a great service by exposing
KMT's dirty laundry to the public. As we all know, MOE has been
reprimanded for not following the necessary procedure of handling
these artworks.
Danny Chi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Truth? Have you seen the Japanese movie, Rashomon?
"Yi1 Zhen1 Jian4 Xie3" (Hit the nail on the head)
one needle see blood
"Rashomon" phenomenon is a human nature. I believe Mark Lee is talking
about some news reporters who intentionally created "new facts" out of
their own (political) interests.
History is even worse.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time for a joke:
"The one duty we owe to history is to rewrite it."
(Oscar Wilde, 1854-1900)
(That's why some people are here in the SCT&SCC. ;-))
One more:
"The great mass of people will more easily fall victim to a big lie
than to a small one." ;-)
(Adolf Hitler, 1889-–1945)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wish you a happy new year!
-- Danny Chi
Chris Chou
>Mark Lee <m...@pc2.hinet.net> wrote:
>
>This probably makes the differences on the interpretation on
>unbiasedness. I doubt that any newspapers can really present all the
>"facts" to the readers. In my mind, the first requirement for
>unbiasedness is balanced report. There is no doubt in my mind that
>readers has "the right to know" as this is one of the most important
>principle in journalism, however, "presenting all the facts" is very
>hard for any journalist.
All the facts?
Who know all the facts?
Balanced report?
What is balanced? Why don't they report what "I" think or what *you* think
instead of those selected by them (the selection itself is a biased process)?
All the reports/articles are simply biased including what I am saying now.
Those are written by a small number of people who see a small portion of
the world and try to behave like they know everything [about a certain event].
Give me a break, don't kid yourself about finding an unbiased newspaper,
because there is none.
The principle in journalism, in my opinion, should have been read like this
"readers have the right to know what I (as a reporter) want them to know".
cc
--
~~~
@-@
--------------------------oo0--U--0oo---------------------------
Jim B. Yang
Lilian Chung <llc...@bison.cad.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>TC, I suggest you not waste time with Boulder :) He doesn't
>deserver your attention.
>
>
Lilian:
No, Boulder is a fille.
Jim
_____________________________________________________________________
Opinion expressed is by the employee not by the employer.
_____________________________________________________________________
Te-Ming Peng
>All the facts?
>Who know all the facts?
Well, that was not my original argument althought you follow up my
post. Therefore, I skip it and would suggest you ask the original
poster :).
>Balanced report?
>What is balanced? Why don't they report what "I" think or what *you* think
>instead of those selected by them (the selection itself is a biased process)?
Balanced report in general is easier to achieve than representing all
the facts. When an event comes out, it usually involves 4w and 1h, or
at least some of them. So the journalist can always ask counter
paries' opinions based on these information. If a piece of news can
contain those opinions, then balanced report is achieved. Self
selection is unavoidable even for those journalists who always put
justice and fairness in mind.
>All the reports/articles are simply biased including what I am saying now.
>Those are written by a small number of people who see a small portion of
>the world and try to behave like they know everything [about a certain event].
>Give me a break, don't kid yourself about finding an unbiased newspaper,
>because there is none.
Claiming that everything is biased is just like saying that Taipei
will rain next year--they are 100% true but they all lack operational
contents and is thus meaningless. The problem is not whether they are
"biased" but that whether we have a free opinion markets so that
different interpretations can come out so as to let the readers judge
based on these interpretations. One newspaper cannot do the job. Try
it by yourself. ... By the way, I was a jounalist before and that was
after I received master degree in Economics from NTU. However, I had
never thought of myself as someone knowing everything even in the area
of economics and economy. Some of my former collegues also think the
same way as I did. Just want to give you a counter example of your
generalization :).
>The principle in journalism, in my opinion, should have been read like this
>"readers have the right to know what I (as a reporter) want them to know".
In my opinion, this is also a over-generalization.
Chang-Ping Lee
Danny Chi <dan...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> I believe Mark Lee is talking
>about some news reporters who intentionally created "new facts" out of
>their own (political) interests.
I have no doubt there are such reporters. In fact, I have seen
a potential one myself. However, I don't think Mark Lee was
just talking about "some". That's why I asked him to back up
his "strong" accusations.
Over generalization is a bad habit. As long as there is one
exception, people should not smear the whole group.
I agree with Te-Ming that the duty of a reporter is to present
balanced reports. A reporter should do the job of witness, lawyer
of all parties and let the readers be the jurors and judge.
>History is even worse.
Can't agree more. :-)
>Wish you a happy new year!
The same to you and everybody here. Only three days away, right? :-)
Chang
Chang-Ping Lee
Mr. Mark Lee,
It's dangerous to over generalize and make accusations based on
your guess of others' intention. With your strong subjectivity,
I fail to see how those accused can make you happy unless they
take every order from you.
First, let's see how many such over-generalization and/or
accusations you have made in just one post.
>>>I don't think World Daily, United Daily or any other newspaper in
>>>Taiwan are really out there with the single purpose to serve the reader.
>>>frankly none of the political figures there really cared about the artworks.
>>>What you read in the papers were stand-up talk show put on by these
>>>political figures.
>>>Do you really think that the outspoken political figures really understand
>>>or appreciate the value of these artworks?
>>>The public outcry throughout this incident was well orchestrated by the NP
>>>in an attempt to discredit KMT.
Quite an "achievement" in just one post, isn't it?
Chang
In article <4g1pap$2...@serv.hinet.net>, Mark Lee <m...@pc2.hinet.net> wrote:
>c...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Chang-Ping Lee) wrote:
>>In article <4g0qh6$7...@serv.hinet.net>, Mark Lee <m...@pc2.hinet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Unbiased reporting gives reader all the facts and let them be the judge.
>>>I don't think World Daily, United Daily or any other newspaper in
>>>Taiwan are really out there with the single purpose to serve the reader.
>>>Note that I put all Taiwan newspapers (even the pro-TI ones) in this
>>>category. I am not talking about any party preference here. I am
>>>addressing the basic right of people to know the truth.
>>
>>Truth? Have you seen the Japanese movie, Rashomon?
>>
>
>Yes, one of my favorite Japanese movies. Truth, though difficult to attain,
>is something we all strive for. I know it is difficult for newspaper to
>present a multifaceted incident within such limited space, but I do question
^^^^^^^^
>if that is even a goal for the newspapers in Taiwan.
I must say that from accusation to "question" is a big
improvement. Congratulation, Mr. Mark Lee.
>The "truth" in this case is only limited to the activities that I have
>attended. And all these rallies were organized by NP volunteers. The
>keynote speakers in these events were mostly NP Legislators. These are
>the truth as I know it. I might not have provided the balanced reporting
>that Te-Ming Peng talked about, but for an amateur reporter, this will
>do.
What you say here might be facts, but what you said last time
went far beyond facts and made accusations based on your
subjective guess of others' intention.
Again, congratulation for the improvement.
>In a way, NP is doing the people in Taiwan a great service by exposing
>KMT's dirty laundry to the public. As we all know, MOE has been
>reprimanded for not following the necessary procedure of handling
>these artworks.
Can I also say that I am doing you a great service by changing
your attitude from smearing NP to acknowledging their contribution?
Chang-Ping Lee
I see that you have abandoned the word "truth" and use "fact" instead.
Very good. Keep improving please.
Chang
In article <4g3hk6$7...@serv.hinet.net>, Mark Lee <m...@pc2.hinet.net> wrote:
>tem...@u.washington.edu (Te-Ming Peng) wrote:
>>ccc...@dogbert.dr.att.com (Chris Chou) wrote:
>>
>>>All the facts?
>>>Who know all the facts?
>>
>>Well, that was not my original argument althought you follow up my
>>post. Therefore, I skip it and would suggest you ask the original
>>poster :).
>>
>
>Thank you Peng for passing the hot potato.
>
>In news reporting, it is important to provide the readers with peripheral
>knowledge around the main event. Without this background coverage, the
>reporter has chosen not to give us all the facts.
>
>
>>>The principle in journalism, in my opinion, should have been read like this
>>>"readers have the right to know what I (as a reporter) want them to know".
>>
>>In my opinion, this is also a over-generalization.
>>
>
>News reporting is usually very subjective (either by the reporter or by his
>editor). Consequently, I think a good reporter must have a high level
>of professional integrity. And that, Peng, is what I see missing in today's
>reporter in Taiwan, IMHO.
>
>
Chang-Ping Lee
You did not respond to my last post completely. I suppose you have
no objection to the parts that you left out.
Look, I am not trying to pick bone from your eggs. :-)
In the court, it doesn't make much sense to accuse someone based
on the wild guess of his intention. The same is true for politics.
First, it's hard to tell that one wild guess is closer to the
truth than another. Secondly, we should make our judgements based
on what's been done intead of wild guess.
You want to make judgement based on wild guess? There is an old
poem:
周公恐懼流言日, 王莽禮賢下士時. 設若當時皆身死, 千古忠奸有誰知.
which says when Chou1 Gong1 was afraid of rumors and Wang2 Mang3
was nice to scholars, if they both had died at that moment, how
can one tell the loyal one from the evil one in a thousand years?
Confucious also said 久假而不返, 焉知其非仁 which means if one
pretends to follow the way of Ren for a long time how do you
know s/he has been pretending?
In a democracy, we really should concentrate on what have been
done instead of wild guess on the polititians. Both Chou Gong
and Wang Mang can be used to serve the people.
In article <4g3gg7$7...@serv.hinet.net>, Mark Lee <m...@pc2.hinet.net> wrote:
>c...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Chang-Ping Lee) wrote:
>>
>>Mr. Mark Lee,
>>
>>It's dangerous to over generalize and make accusations based on
>>your guess of others' intention. With your strong subjectivity,
>>I fail to see how those accused can make you happy unless they
>>take every order from you.
>>
>
>I think every statement we make reflects our subjective interpretation
>of some events.
True, but it doesn't mean one should make strong accusations
on others solely based on subjective interpretation.
> Furthermore, the process of deducing varies from
>person to person. What you view as over-generalization may be a
>carefully screened statement in my opinion.
It might be more convincing if you can show a little about
your careful screening process.
>>>>>I don't think World Daily, United Daily or any other newspaper in
>>>>>Taiwan are really out there with the single purpose to serve the reader.
>
>It is still my belief that these papers are not doing their jobs. But
>I also stated that freedom of press is still in its infancy stage in
>Taiwan. I will give them a few more years to learn.
These sound reasonable, but read your previous statements
again. They seemed to accuse ALL newspaper in Taiwan have
some kind of hidden agenda.
>>>>>frankly none of the political figures there really cared about the artworks.
>
>Let me narrow down the group to "those political figures that were there at
>the rally". But I also do think most people know enough about the artworks
>to really appreciate their value. I know I don't.
Read your statements again. You are accusing others based
on your subjective interpretation.
>>>>>What you read in the papers were stand-up talk show put on by these
>>>>>political figures.
>
>Is that an overgeneralization? It is a known fact that politicians play
>up to the media. I am sorry if I don't seem to have a higher opinion of
>our politicians, but the more time I spend with them, the more disappointed
>I become.
Well, it's an over generalization if you haven't read all (or even
most) of the newspapers.
>>>>>Do you really think that the outspoken political figures really understand
>>>>>or appreciate the value of these artworks?
>
>See above. Chang, name one politician you know that really cares about what
>are inside the National Palace Museum. Before these rallies, I have not gone
>there since 1974. And judging from what these "political figure" said, they
>were not frequent visitors either.
The fact that I don't know their intention does not imply that
your wild guess on their intention is valid.
>>>>>The public outcry throughout this incident was well orchestrated by the NP
>>>>>in an attempt to discredit KMT.
>
>I'll leave this one to your imagination. BTW, you know well that I am not
>pro-KMT.
Although I do have feeling similar to yours, I prefer not to
judge NP by such feeling. I would ask, is NP doing the right
thing to protect the national treasure? Is KMT making the
mistake of putting the national treasure in danger? If the
answers are yes, I would give NP credits no matter what their
intention might be.
Wild guess is not constructive. See the smearing in the
campaign for presidential election?
Chang
Chang-Ping Lee
>
>Smearing NP was not one of my intention. I think very highly of NP.
>They help keeping our corrupted political system in check (at least
>some of the times).
I used to think highly of NP too, but not as high now.
However, when I criticize I try to limit the target to
the few statements/members I am not happy about. I try
to be fair to those nice NPers.
>But appreciation aside, I feel the room for improvement of our newspaper
>is definitely there. Freedom of Press without a healthy news media does
>not really help the people much.
Definitely. But I also wish to remind you that some of the
phenomena may due to lack of trainging or professionalism
instead of illed intention.
Chang
Tung-Chiang Yang
the readers be the judge.
In that case, you can expect "China Times" and "United Daily" to have a
copy of newspaper 20cm thick each day, since you want "all the facts".
Keep in mind that "too many information is no information".
============================================================
Mark Lee (m...@pc2.hinet.net) wrote:
> Unbiased reporting gives reader all the facts and let them be the judge.
> I don't think World Daily, United Daily or any other newspaper in
> Taiwan are really out there with the single purpose to serve the reader.
> Note that I put all Taiwan newspapers (even the pro-TI ones) in this
> category. I am not talking about any party preference here. I am
> addressing the basic right of people to know the truth.
> ( deleted )
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Feb 16, 1996
Tung-Chiang Yang
However, crediting all the artwork tour issues to NP might not be fair.
I would like to remind you that NP Legislator Ms. CHU, Huei-liang, who
topped all other candidates in the Southern District of Taipei City in
the last election, used to work in National Palace Museum and she handled
many stuffs for this exhibition, and she showed an awkward position in
this incident.
Independent Presidential candidate CHEN, Li-an and DPP Vice Presidential
candidate Hsieh, Frank also joined the protest. Besides, I did not see
NP pushing this protest highly.
==========================================================
Mark Lee (m...@pc2.hinet.net) wrote:
> ( deleted )
> In a way, NP is doing the people in Taiwan a great service by exposing
> KMT's dirty laundry to the public. As we all know, MOE has been
> reprimanded for not following the necessary procedure of handling
> these artworks.
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Feb 16, 1996
Tung-Chiang Yang
users along this thread.
=========================================
Lilian Chung (llc...@bison.cad.ucla.edu) wrote:
> TC, I suggest you not waste time with Boulder :) He doesn't
> deserver your attention.
> By the way, you might want to apologize for laughing at
> America-on-Line users. That should be something you should
> do as a gentleman.
> Lilian
>
--
Mark Lee
>
>Mr. Mark Lee,
>
>It's dangerous to over generalize and make accusations based on
>your guess of others' intention. With your strong subjectivity,
>I fail to see how those accused can make you happy unless they
>take every order from you.
>
I think every statement we make reflects our subjective interpretation
of some events. Furthermore, the process of deducing varies from
person to person. What you view as over-generalization may be a
carefully screened statement in my opinion.
But in any case, when I am unhappy, I blame no one. I choose to
feel that way. Check out Bloomfield's book "Making Peace with Yourself".
>First, let's see how many such over-generalization and/or
>accusations you have made in just one post.
>
>>>>I don't think World Daily, United Daily or any other newspaper in
>>>>Taiwan are really out there with the single purpose to serve the reader.
>
It is still my belief that these papers are not doing their jobs. But
I also stated that freedom of press is still in its infancy stage in
Taiwan. I will give them a few more years to learn.
>>>>frankly none of the political figures there really cared about the artworks.
>
Let me narrow down the group to "those political figures that were there at
the rally". But I also do think most people know enough about the artworks
to really appreciate their value. I know I don't.
>>>>What you read in the papers were stand-up talk show put on by these
>>>>political figures.
>
Is that an overgeneralization? It is a known fact that politicians play
up to the media. I am sorry if I don't seem to have a higher opinion of
our politicians, but the more time I spend with them, the more disappointed
I become.
>>>>Do you really think that the outspoken political figures really understand
>>>>or appreciate the value of these artworks?
>
See above. Chang, name one politician you know that really cares about what
are inside the National Palace Museum. Before these rallies, I have not gone
there since 1974. And judging from what these "political figure" said, they
were not frequent visitors either.
>>>>The public outcry throughout this incident was well orchestrated by the NP
>>>>in an attempt to discredit KMT.
>
I'll leave this one to your imagination. BTW, you know well that I am not
pro-KMT.
>Quite an "achievement" in just one post, isn't it?
>
>
>Chang
Just a lot of rambling.
>
Mark Lee
Mark Lee
>I must say that from accusation to "question" is a big
>improvement. Congratulation, Mr. Mark Lee.
>
Thank you, Dr. Lee.
>
>What you say here might be facts, but what you said last time
>went far beyond facts and made accusations based on your
>subjective guess of others' intention.
>
>Again, congratulation for the improvement.
>
Thank you again, Dr. Lee.
>>In a way, NP is doing the people in Taiwan a great service by exposing
>>KMT's dirty laundry to the public. As we all know, MOE has been
>>reprimanded for not following the necessary procedure of handling
>>these artworks.
>
>Can I also say that I am doing you a great service by changing
>your attitude from smearing NP to acknowledging their contribution?
Hmm, let's see. Do I want to post the thank you letter in one of the
newspapers I value so lowly? :D
Smearing NP was not one of my intention. I think very highly of NP.
They help keeping our corrupted political system in check (at least
some of the times).
But appreciation aside, I feel the room for improvement of our newspaper
Chris Chou
>ccc...@dogbert.dr.att.com (Chris Chou) wrote:
>
>>Balanced report?
>>What is balanced? Why don't they report what "I" think or what *you* think
>>instead of those selected by them (the selection itself is a biased process)?
>
>Balanced report in general is easier to achieve than representing all
>the facts. When an event comes out, it usually involves 4w and 1h, or
>at least some of them. So the journalist can always ask counter
>paries' opinions based on these information. If a piece of news can
>contain those opinions, then balanced report is achieved. Self
>selection is unavoidable even for those journalists who always put
>justice and fairness in mind.
See, this is exactly the mentality of a biased opinion.
"Balanced report in general is .....",
please, add something like "in my opinion";
instead of saying that like a quote.
Note that I have neither agreed nor objected to your opinion.
What I think inappropriate is the way of expressing the opinion.
>
>>All the reports/articles are simply biased including what I am saying now.
>>Those are written by a small number of people who see a small portion of
>>the world and try to behave like they know everything [about a certain event].
>>Give me a break, don't kid yourself about finding an unbiased newspaper,
>>because there is none.
>
>Claiming that everything is biased is just like saying that Taipei
>will rain next year--they are 100% true but they all lack operational
>contents and is thus meaningless. The problem is not whether they are
>"biased" but that whether we have a free opinion markets so that
>different interpretations can come out so as to let the readers judge
>based on these interpretations. One newspaper cannot do the job. Try
>it by yourself. ... By the way, I was a jounalist before and that was
>after I received master degree in Economics from NTU. However, I had
>never thought of myself as someone knowing everything even in the area
>of economics and economy. Some of my former collegues also think the
>same way as I did. Just want to give you a counter example of your
>generalization :).
Hey, please read carefully. I never said jounralists "know everything",
what I said was "behave like that".
My point is, newspaper can not be unbiased, because it is written by a
small group of people. Yes, they may have diverse background, but they
are not as diverse as a society. And what they can present, by no means,
is "all the facts". At most, that is what "all this journalist knows".
So, I say there is no unbiased newspaper.
Even more, [though sound offensive],
I really think a lot of journalists know a little of what they are reporting,
especially science and tech. Sometimes they make so serious mistakes that
I can't ignore. ;)
>
>>The principle in journalism, in my opinion, should have been read like this
>>"readers have the right to know what I (as a reporter) want them to know".
>
>In my opinion, this is also a over-generalization.
>
Oh yeah? What else can a journalist achieve besides
"let readers know what I (as a journalist) want them to know?"
YangZi River No. 1.5
>Thank you Peng for passing the hot potato.
You are most welcome :).
>In news reporting, it is important to provide the readers with peripheral
>knowledge around the main event. Without this background coverage, the
>reporter has chosen not to give us all the facts.
That sometimes might be too much to ask. Journalists are not college
professors, and even if they are, it is still very difficult for them
to achieve that. Knowledge itself is not neutral or value free
especially in the area of social sciences and humanities.
>News reporting is usually very subjective (either by the reporter or by his
>editor). Consequently, I think a good reporter must have a high level
>of professional integrity. And that, Peng, is what I see missing in today's
>reporter in Taiwan, IMHO.
As I was in the business before, probably I know more rats than you
do. Nonthelessly, even if journalists intend to maintain high level of
professional integrity, as you suggested, they are constantly facing
murky and uncertain situations where they are not that sure the source
of information is a genuine one. Using jargon in economics, they are
facing asymmetric information problem.
Another problem is that the journalists are constantly treated as
scapegoats for some people. One thing I had experienced before was
after I left the job and accepted an offer to an organization. One day
morning, the director discovered that one newspaper report something
that he believed it was the journalist who had interviewed him the day
before stole or peeked the information from his desk. As he did not
like journalist and newspapers at all, he immediately concluded that
the journalist did such unforgivable evil thing, and quickly
disseminated his beliefs to the whole department. Many of them
believed him, and some of them even condemned journalists in front of
me :).
I was the only one in that department who was a journalist before, and
I told them that judging from the situation the director had described
to us, it is unlikely the reporter would do that kind of thing.
Several days later, we learned that the information was revealed by a
director of another department :). This kind of things happened all
the time.
Back to what you had maintained that news are usually very
"subjective". Personally, I wouldn't use that term. There are several
reasons. Firstly, journalists are right in the middle between sources
and the readers. In many cases, "subjectivity", if any, comes not from
reporters, but from the sources. In this case, it is the opinions of
the sources do not match with those of some readers. You might claim
that journalists should have professional knowledge to identify it.
Unfortunately, it is not easy to do that. I have already given my
reasons in the second paragraphs.
Secondly, in some other cases, it is the readers who do not agree with
what the journalists say should bear the responsibility. Sometimes
readers are very strong in their own perceptions or opinions that they
don't want to accept what news described. If we require that
journalists should have the professionalism, which I honor and accept
it, we should also ask ourselves that as a reader whether we are too
"stubborn" to refuse believing something.
Finally, even if "subjectivity" is well defined in your sense, as we
all participate the newsgroups, we should also try to cultivate an
attitude that the forums are good trainning grouds for us to sharpen
our logical reasoning, in addition to just expressing our own feeling,
mere conclusions, practicing english writing, or anything similar to
them. If we are to condemn other people's "subjectivity", we should
also try to avoid doing it.
Go becoming a journalist, and you will understand what I say :).
Te-Ming
Danny Chi
-------------------------------------------------------------------
: Look, I am not trying to pick bone from your eggs. :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Relax..... I burst into a laugh when I read the above. ;-)
(me "Xing1 Shu4 Bu2 Zhen4")
Just kidding. Anyway. you guys really have a good discussion.
-- Danny Chi
Chang-Ping Lee
Well, Danny. To be honest with you, I wasn't completely innocent.
When I wrote down that sentence I didn't have any color in my mind.
But, later when I took a second look I did find that it can also
have some colorful interpretation.
Sorry Mr. Mark Lee, I should have made it to be without colorful
ambiguity.
This reminds me a story happened more than 10 years ago. I went
to a fast food chain for two pieces of fry chicken. The lady
asked me what did I want, chicken breast (with wing) or chicken
thigh (with leg.) Without any hesitation, I answered "I want
breast" immediately. The lady smiled ambiguously and I realized
that I might have said something that also had some colorful
interpretation.
Just something for a good time right before new year. :-)
Chang
Te-Ming Peng
>See, this is exactly the mentality of a biased opinion.
>"Balanced report in general is .....",
>please, add something like "in my opinion";
>instead of saying that like a quote.
No, this is not "the mentality of a biased opinion". It is a basic
principle that a journalist should abide by. If you don't believe
that, you can ask some other journalists, or professors in Journalism.
My head is not big enough to wear such a hat as "the mentality of a
biased opinion" :).
>Note that I have neither agreed nor objected to your opinion.
>What I think inappropriate is the way of expressing the opinion.
You are making guess of my expression which, "in my opinion", is
inappropriate as well as incorrect.
>>
>>>All the reports/articles are simply biased including what I am saying now.
>>>Those are written by a small number of people who see a small portion of
>>>the world and try to behave like they know everything [about a certain event].
>>>Give me a break, don't kid yourself about finding an unbiased newspaper,
>>>because there is none.
>>
>>Claiming that everything is biased is just like saying that Taipei
>>will rain next year--they are 100% true but they all lack operational
>>contents and is thus meaningless. The problem is not whether they are
>>"biased" but that whether we have a free opinion markets so that
>>different interpretations can come out so as to let the readers judge
>>based on these interpretations. One newspaper cannot do the job. Try
>>it by yourself. ... By the way, I was a jounalist before and that was
>>after I received master degree in Economics from NTU. However, I had
>>never thought of myself as someone knowing everything even in the area
>>of economics and economy. Some of my former collegues also think the
>>same way as I did. Just want to give you a counter example of your
>>generalization :).
>Hey, please read carefully. I never said jounralists "know everything",
>what I said was "behave like that".
Hey, please read my post again before you put down the above comment.
I said "I have never thought...". If one didn't think that way, one
would not "behave like that". On the other hand, if you believe one
can still behave like that without thinking it, then the problem might
come from your interpretation of others' behaviors, or the journalists
are robots :). To let other netters judge what you and I had said, I
preserve the old paragraphs.
>My point is, newspaper can not be unbiased, because it is written by a
>small group of people. Yes, they may have diverse background, but they
>are not as diverse as a society. And what they can present, by no means,
>is "all the facts". At most, that is what "all this journalist knows".
>So, I say there is no unbiased newspaper.
I didn't deny newspaper cannot be unbiased. I was saying that to claim
everything is biased lacks operational contents. If one "predicts"
that Taipei will rain next year, then although this "prediction" can
be realized 100 %, it doesn't give us any useful implication, same
thing applies to what you said "there is no unbiased newspaper".
Insisting on the argument of "biased or unbiased" only dichotomize the
issue. Journalists can be "biased", so are other people. However,
argument along this line doesn't imporve deeper understanding. It only
shows that "I cannot be wrong because I make a 100% true statement".
>Even more, [though sound offensive],
>I really think a lot of journalists know a little of what they are reporting,
>especially science and tech. Sometimes they make so serious mistakes that
>I can't ignore. ;)
This I agree and I regard it as an honor to have a netter asking such
high standard to the journalists. Few people can really achieve that,
and I doubt that if there is any ;). On the other hand, as I
specialized in Economics, I also find readers do not quite understand
what the journalists intended to convey in some economic issues, and
yet they would criticize we are "wrong" or making "serious mistakes"
:).
>Oh yeah? What else can a journalist achieve besides
>"let readers know what I (as a journalist) want them to know?"
It is not necessarily true that a journalist just "let readers know
what I want them to know". A journalist also receives reactions from
the readers all the time, so what they do sometimes reflect what the
readers want them to do. Readers and journalist interact very often.
You would say that probably you were not in this business before.
Jeffchen63
nonsense that's why he attacked you with those irrelevant stuff like
AOL users... Right now he is looking for the excuse for those nonsense
he could not defend, in other words, finding the steps to step down. :)
I suggest you forgive his childish behavior and give him break this time.
Jeff Chen
Tung-Chiang Yang wrote:
>
>You are right. I apologize here for what I laughed about America-on-Line
>users along this thread.
>
>=========================================
>Lilian Chung (llc...@bison.cad.ucla.edu) wrote:
>
Lilian Chung
Tung-Chiang Yang
opinion".
Personally, if a news items says something like "(Reuter, Feb. 14, 1996,
Taipei)", it implies "In Reuter's opinion".
We don't want to read a news message of 500 words, with warning messages
like
* This report was based on reporter's Yang's personal opinion. It might
not reflect the truth or facts. The report was provided here as is.
No further liabilities are implied or included.
=======================================================
Te-Ming Peng (tem...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
> ccc...@dogbert.dr.att.com (Chris Chou) wrote:
> >See, this is exactly the mentality of a biased opinion.
> >"Balanced report in general is .....",
> >please, add something like "in my opinion";
> >instead of saying that like a quote.
> No, this is not "the mentality of a biased opinion". It is a basic
> principle that a journalist should abide by. If you don't believe
> that, you can ask some other journalists, or professors in Journalism.
> My head is not big enough to wear such a hat as "the mentality of a
> biased opinion" :).
> ( deleted )
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Feb 17, 1996
Jeffchen63
Yang". Cant you see they are same person? Do you want to deal with
someone is
even willing to change his gender. ;)
Jeff Chen
Tung-Chiang Yang
Yang from Syracuse, Lilian Chung from UCLA, and Tung-chiang Yang from
UCLA are all the same person.
Again I would apologize for laughing AoL people's stupidity -- for the
text above.
This deviates from the subject and further followups not advised.
==================================================
> Jeff Chen
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Feb 18, 1996
Jeffchen63
person.
There have been several incidents that TC Yang forged/deleted his
opponents' posts or used fake accounts attacking his opponents. Those
opponents include Tsai from Tufts, Chandra from Rutgers, Kyle Chen
from USC, Carl Kao from neosoft.... I knew one of his opponents.
But this time TC Yang wanted to impress us with his fantasy ;) so he
picked the name "Lilian" for himeself. "Lilian".... what a nice name.
Anyway, take my advice that dont talk to anyone who is even willing to
change his gender. After all, he is no longer a "gentleMAN" as he
claimed. ;) And you are better off spending time watching the movie
"Victor, Victoria". ;) ;) ;)
Jeff Chen
Tung-Chiang Yang
argued with myself :) In fact, I also signed up Jeffchen38 with AoL and
ready for posting against you, Jeffchen62 :)
In fact, there are now 97 different posters in soc.culture.taiwan under
my control, believe it or not ;)
To tell you one more shocking truth, I got an account at USC and I also
posted as Kyle Chen. Flaming myself is indeed fun.
=========================================================
> Jeff Chen
--
Tung-chiang Yang tcy...@seas.ucla.edu
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html, China_faq.html
School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, USA
Feb 20, 1996