---

"Enkil" <nospam@yanoo.com> wrote in message news:dsahlq$271$1@netnews.hinet.net...
> Really, if you follow the illogic of the notion that the only way to be
> informed about the conditions of a place is to go there, then it must be
> assumed that the more one has been there then the more one is qualified to
> speak on that place, both positively and negatively. Is that the truth?
> I'm quite sure I have far greater experience in China than Venning does.
> Does that make me more qualified to speak on China than him? Should he
> refrain from commenting on China and accept my opinion instead? I've never
> heard anyone make that ridiculous assertion. Nobody goes around saying a
> person can't praise a country unless they've been there. That would be
> stupid, but really it's the same thing.

This person, Enkil, has been criticising the Chinese government's ways of dealing with various issues without ever having been to the places where these issues were taking place. "Proxy reporter", is a term that comes to mind. He then proceeded to criticise the Danish people's and the Danish government's actions about those Mohammed cartoons without even knowing how the Danish people really felt, and his only knowledge about Denmark and Danish exports was "cookies and cheese (don't forget the cheese)". It is one thing to discuss matters here in forums, but totally another to condemn a nation's ways without even having been to that particular country and see for oneself the real issues and tensions that cause the turmoil. I cannot believe that a person like Enkil can give a clear and fair comment about the situations in China or Denmark if he has not even been to the places in question, specially if he harbours hostile feelings about the country in question.
J.