Maurice, let me be precise, the message meant that given my understanding of what is in an area where I have have thought much about, for me to read what the roman (it actually didn't matter wether he was a roman or a chinese or an eskimo) had to say must be justified by him being at least perceivable as more thoughtful or original.
The guy's message STARTS out by trying to deny, IME, the relationship of the CCP and the New China. When a message starts out like that, it can be ignored safely, because denying the obvious and apparent, whether one is for or against the outcome, is never ever a good place to start an understanding of the complexities at hand.
And so, therefore, I feel completely safe in ignoring the man, and I would do so with still more vigor had he been Chinese, of whatever flavor, rather than roman.
That, having been said, does absolutely not say, implicitly or explicitly, that anyone else should do likewise, should they feel they have the time and inclination.
It was proposed, implicitly by having been posted to me, that I ought to also read the guy's article, I am guessing, and so I asked, very precisely, "... why? have the romans been successful in transforming china?
no?
then why bother?"
The plural romans was used in the original message, and through the sensitivities and sensibilities, the emotional folks and misted souls chose to take in the message however they did. Delicious. Love it.
See, so simple a message, in question form, and so misunderstood, through the cloud of emotion and mist of thoughts.
That was fun. Now, today, Sunday, a boat trip.
Chugs, J |
