[KS] Library of Congress Korean Controversy

[J.Scott Burgeson]

Gene, all I will say is that I retracted the term "spam" (even though a certain someone has clearly avoided my request for dialogue on this issue), and I wonder if I really seem to think that Dokdo-Takeshima is a "non-issue"? "Neutral" is a loaded term now? What's next, being "fair" and "objective"? As for "lobbying" for a foreign government, Hana Kim is not a US citizen so what is a better term for me to have used in her case?  

Around and around and around in circles we go!

--Scott Bug



--- On Tue, 7/22/08, Eugene Y. Park <eugene.y.park at uci.edu> wrote:

> From: Eugene Y. Park <eugene.y.park at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [KS] Library of Congress Korean Controversy
> To: "Korean Studies Discussion List" <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
> Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2008, 4:58 PM
> Dear Scott,
> 
> I appreciate the spirit of your suggestions, but some of
> the "incidental
> rhetorical terms" that have been
> used--"lobbying" and "neutral," for
> example--seem pretty loaded to me. And didn't this
> whole discussion get
> started on the questions about "nationalistic
> spamming" over "non-issues"
> and "lobbying?" Again I do not know Hana Kim, but
> to suggest, for example,
> that the hapless librarian was lobbying for a foreign
> government seems
> like a serious charge to me. What do you think?
> 
> Of course, there's the islet question itself, on which
> I think we've
> already had plenty of discussions here in the past, if
> I'm not mistaken. 
> In this light, each of the two statements that you make
> (below) seem to
> oversimplify the frustratingly complex situation.
>