Andre Engels wrote:
2008/6/12 Waerth <waerth(a)asianet.co.th>th>:
Then they weren't impressed enough with the
face loosing potential. It
isn't an easy thing. It must be done in such a way that you are the
honorable party (and no not western honor, Asian/Chinese honor). And it
must make you look smart and subtle (so absolutely not a lot of talking
and compromising). And it must offer them a way out in which they can
gain face to the public at large. So that even though they take a step
back, publicly it will appear that they have gained. Very common thing
in politics here. And what also helps is if you can offer them a
scapegoat on whom to put all of the blame.
Problem is: How can a relatively small American foundation that is
blocked from China have any credulity in threatening to let China's
largest internet firm loose face?
There are always ways Andre. You just have to look carefully at the
problem. You remember how the Chinese reacted when the riots in Tibet
were all over the world ........ They lost face then, not just because
of the riots but by them being aggressive in their reaction. That is one
of the reasons that they backed off off their aggressive reactions
pretty quickly. The other reason was that they realized that they were
fanning nationalism which could turn ugly on themselves.
I am sure that there are ways. For a start you could start by copying
their content onto Wikipedia. I know it violates our own rules, but you
cannot always be the nicest kid on the block. If they complain,
basically answer that by copying our content they acknowledged that
their own content was for free. Then if they start to make a stink,
present them with the letters that were send to them (I presume the
Foundation tried to contact them) and to which they never reacted. Do
this publicly offcourse.
Furthermore these kind of things are better not discussed on a public
list where the "enemy" can read what you are planning!
Waerth