Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 13:19:59 +0930
From: "9309629n-AT-magpie.magill.unisa.edu.au"
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Theresa Di's]


As the woman who started this thread, I would like to apologise for any
offense caused - clearly I should have chosen my words more carefully.
I don't know Diana at all - I have never even followed her stories in the
media. I do know of Mother Theresa, however: the darkest day of British
journalisms history was when Christopher Hitchins launched his book "The
MIssionary Position", regarding what he believed to be the corruption
inherent in Mother Theresa's "corporation". 

That said, I don't wish to say that Diana was anything but a civil human
being - and an extremely exploited one at that. Added to which - whether
the woman be Madonna or my next door neighbour, we do not need more
castigation of women - particularly not women in positions of power.

Brigid Venables
9309629n

On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, cestmoi wrote:

> Dear Salil Tripathi,
> 
> You don't need to send me email separately...sending to sa_cyborgs will
> do.  I'm receiving 2 copies of your diatribe against Princess Diana. 
> The fact that you and your sons don't care for "Diana, Diana, Diana"
> doesn't mean she needs now to be vehemently degraded and denigrated. 
> She's not perfect, and neither are we.  You picked out my calling her
> "humanitarian," and are now going out of your way to teach me what
> humanitarian is, and how your family members are humanitarian.  So are
> mine.  That doesn't detract from Princess Diana.  Because she is a
> public figure is no reason to tear her down.  Everyone is bothered by
> hyperbole.  We take what's real and discard what isn't.
> 
> Manjusree Sen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salil Tripathi wrote:
> > 
> > Dear cestmoi,
> > 
> > Some of us are bothered by the excessiveness and the hyperbole, that's all.
> > 
> > >Princess Diana suffered an isolation not even a dog deserves.
> > 
> > Really, each of her moves was watched, celebrated on and commented. She was
> > invited to the best parties, and rock stars vied for her attention. She had
> > any number of good friends, and while she had the misfortune of marrying a
> > philandering rich husband, so do many others.
> > 
> > >Despite
> > >it, she was a loving mother to her own children...
> > 
> > So is my mother, my wife, and many, many millions of others. Nothing
> > enormously humanitarian about it.
> > 
> > > she loved the world's children;
> > 
> > I have two sons, 7 and 4. Both got irritated by the Diana coverage in the
> > media. My elder one asked: "Diana Diana Diana -- isn't there anything else
> > to write about?" My younger son refused to let me watch the funeral on TV
> > (which I needed to for my work as a journalist), saying "I'm not going to.
> > Enough is enough." This, from two of the world's children. Their lives were
> > not even remotely touched by Diana; nor that of their classmates, nor that
> > of many millions of children in the world.
> > 
> > Hey, my kids get greater joy in their lives from Dr Seuss and Panchatantra
> > tales and Aesop's fables than the image of a white fairy holding black and
> > brown babies.
> > 
> > And how much of her 22 million sterling pound bequest did she leave for the
> > world's children or for charity? Not a dime. How much for her own
> > already-rich kids? All of it. I don't blame her for it; but I'm trying to
> > place it in context.
> > 
> > >and as a public
> > >figure, turned her attention to causes that brought a little joy to the
> > >sick and the dying.
> > 
> > She turned her attention to causes that improved her public image, too.
> > 
> > >
> > >I'm surprised you seem not to consider Princess Diana's public works
> > >humanitarian.  In what currency do you deal?
> > 
> > Not hard currency, I can assure you.
> > 
> > Salil
>