| 作者 |
 標題  |
|
|
rockitten
我是老鳥
Australia
8191 Posts |
 Posted - 05/27/2005 : 13:16:09
|
以下是高昇輪船長的證供:
THE SINKING OF THE KOWSHING
Captain Galsworthy's Report
The British steamer Kowshing, owned by the Indo-China Co., left Shanghai on July 17th, bound to Taku, under charter to carry Chinese troops from that port to Asan, on the coast of Korea. Arriving at Taku on the 20th, arrangements were made to ship the troops, and on the 23rd 1100 came on board, including two generals, a number of other officers of various ranks, and a German ex-army officer named Hanneken, who came as an ordinary passenger. At 9.50 p.m. on the 23rd the ship proceeded on her voyage to Asan. All went well until the morning of the 25th, when off Shopeiul Island, we passed a man-of-war flying the Japanese naval ensign, with a white flag above it. This vessel proved to be the Chinese warship Tei Yuen. Shortly afterwards we sighted three Japanese men-of-war, the Naniwa, Yoshino, and another (probably Akitsushima). The Naniwa at once steamed towards us, flying a signal ordering us to stop. She also fired two blank charges, and signaled us to anchor, which we did at once. The Naniwa then steamed away, apparently to communicate with the other ships. I at once enquired by signal if I might proceed, to which the Naniwa replied, "Heave-to or take the consequences." A boat then came from the Naniwa and an officer came on board. He was received at the gangway, and he asked to see the ship's papers. They were shown him, and his attention particularly called to the fact that she was a British ship. Numerous other questions were asked and answered, the most important one being, "Would the Kowshing follow the Naniwa?" Being utterly helpless against a man-of-war, I replied that there would be no alternative but to do so, under protest, if ordered. The officer then left the ship, and proceeded to the Naniwa. Shortly after, being still at anchor, I was ordered by signal to cut, slip, or weigh immediately. The Chinese generals learning the meaning of the signals, and finding preparations were being made to follow the Naniwa, objected most emphatically. They were told how useless it would be to resist, as one shot would sink them in a short time. The generals then said they would rather die than obey Japanese orders, and, as they had 1100 men against about 400 on the Naniwa, they would fight sooner than surrender. They were told that if they decided to fight, the foreign officers would leave the ship. The generals then gave orders to the troops on deck to kill us if we obeyed the orders of the Japanese or attempted to leave the ship. With gestures they threatened to cut off our heads, to stab or shoot us; and a lot of men were selected to watch us and carry out the order. A signal was then made requesting the Naniwa to send a boat, in order to communicate the state of affairs. A boat was at once sent, but a crowd of armed Chinese took possession of the gangway, until I prevailed on the generals to send them away. Eventually the officers came alongside, and a message for the commander of the Naniwa was sent, stating that the Chinese refused to allow the Kowshing to be taken, and insisting upon returning to Taku. It was again pointed out that she was a British ship, and that she had left port before war had been declared. The boat then returned to the Naniwa, and on her arrival a signal was hoisted ordering the Europeans to leave the ship at once. A reply was given that they were not allowed to leave the ship, and asking for a boat to be sent. Notice was sent to the engineers to be handy on deck in case the Japanese fired. The Naniwa shortly afterwards replied that a boat could not be sent. The Naniwa then hoisted a red flag at the fore, which was apparently a signal for discharging a torpedo, as one was fired at the Kowshing, but missed her. A broadside of five guns was then fired. At the time I was on the bridge, my officers having left it, and seeing that the soldiers set to watch me had left their station at the foot of the ladder, I rushed to the wheelhouse, and, after obtaining a lifebelt (the last one remaining), I jumped over the ship's side. In doing so I heard a terrific explosion, and upon returning to the surface of the sea I found the atmosphere was thick with smoke and fine coal powder. I at once struck out for the shore, distant about 1 ¼ miles. There were many Chinese in the water, but I only saw one European, Mr. Von Hanneken. As the air cleared, a bullet struck the water close to my ear, and was followed by a shower of bullets. Knowing that shot from the Naniwa could not strike near me, owing to being sheltered by the hull of the Kowshing, I turned on my back, and saw the Chinese soldiers firing at me from the deck and the 'tween deck ports. As far as possible I protected the back of my head with the lifebelt, and swam as low in the water as I could. Shortly after the Kowshing went down, stern first. After being in the water some time, I was picked up by the Naniwa's cutter, in a very exhausted condition. The same boat had already rescued one of the quartermasters, who had been wounded in the neck by a rifle bullet. On arriving at the Naniwa we found that the chief officer was the only other person saved by the Japanese, leaving five Europeans connected with the ship, and the passenger, missing. We anchored off Shopeiul about 9 a.m. The firing commenced about 1 p.m., and we were taken aboard the Naniwa about 2.30 p.m. During the evening the Naniwa steamed away, arriving the next morning at the rendezvous of the Japanese Fleet in Korea. We were then transferred to the Yayeyama, together with a Danish electrician, named Muhlenstedt, and about sixty Chinese, who were taken prisoners from the Chinese steamer Tso Kiang, the same day. The Yayeyama then proceeded to Sasebo I and Mr. Tamplin, the chief officer, came here in a small tender at noon on Sunday last, having in the mean time been interviewed by Mr. Suyematsu Kencho, President of the Imperial Board of Legislature, who came down from Tokyo for that purpose. The quartermaster remained behind owing to his wound not having properly healed up, whilst Mr. Muhlenstedt is being further detained. During our detention we received every care and attention necessary for our comfort. After arriving here we proceeded to H.M.'s Consulate, and made an affidavit of the entire circumstances. The Naniwa, I may mention, had been damaged on the port quarter from a shot fired from the Tche Yuen in the morning. I can positively say I did not see the Japanese fire on the Chinese in the water. The Chinese killed many of their own people.
Galsworthy |
|
|
rockitten
我是老鳥
Australia
8191 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2005 : 13:18:48
|
以下是浪速艦長東鄉的證供：
THE SINKING OF THE KOWSHING
Official Report of Captain Togo of the Naniwa
"At 9.15 a.m., coming close to the Kowshing, I signaled J.W. (to stop immediately) and twice fired blank shot. The next signal was L.P. (to anchor), which was obeyed. I was at that time very anxious to catch the flying Chinese warship, and I turned a little while in that direction. At that time the Kowshing signaled D.N.W.R. (may I proceed), which I answered by the signal J.W.
"At 10.40, I sent Lieutenant Hitomi and others as prize officers to her. On seeing all the papers and other things, they found that she was carrying contraband persons. So I ordered her to follow me, which her captain consented to do. When I hoisted the signal L.R. (slip or weigh anchor immediately), she asked me by signal to send a boat for communication. I thought that the captain wished to tell me that he was prevented by the Chinese soldiers from obeying my order. So I ordered Lieutenant Hitomi to go again to her, giving him instructions to bring the Europeans on board the Naniwa, if the Chinese generals were resisting the carrying out of my order. When the lieutenant came alongside, the captain came to the gangway and said that the Chinese generals asked to be allowed to return to Taku, as they did not know that war had broken out. The lieutenant informed me that, when he went there, the Chinese soldiers were in a condition of the greatest confusion and excitement, so that the captain intentionally came down to the gangway and would not let him go on deck. Four hours had been consumed in these fruitless negotiations, and there was no longer room for hesitation, so I signaled M.L. (quit the ship immediately). To this the captain again answered by the signal demanding a boat. At that time I thought it would be rather foolish to send our officers, as the Chinese were in such an excited state. Accordingly I signaled H.J. (boat cannot come). It seemed to me that she was awaiting the arrival of the Chinese fleet; moreover, it was very dangerous to hesitate any longer, so I again hoisted the signal M.L., and at the same time a red flag on the foremast. At 1.10 p.m. I ordered one torpedo and shells to be discharged. The latter hit the engine-room.
"At 1.15 the Kowshing began to sink from her stern.
"At 1.37 I sent two cutters to rescue the captain, the officers and the rest.
"At 1.46 she sank.
"The spot where she sank is two miles south of the island of Sho-pai-oul."
Togo |
 |
|
|
rockitten
我是老鳥
Australia
8191 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2005 : 14:49:13
|
那為甚麼船上的乘客會是「違禁品」(contraband persons)呢？
因為1885年伊東佑亨和李鴻章的協定指明，兩方如果有需要派兵到韓國，必需事先通知對方說明意圖。清方在六月那些海上增兵行為沒有通知日方，自然 是「違禁品」。
那究竟發生了甚麼事，會令日艦這麼緊張呢？
因為同一天不久之前就發生了致遠艦和廣乙艦在海上和浪速等艦相遇時，致遠艦和浪速等艦發生沖突。根據Fred T. Jane(就是Jane’s出版社的創始人)的說法是：”The Tsi Yuen was never a good steering ship, and her steering-gear, which had been for some time in a state of neglect, broke down just about the time the Japanese ships were sighted.
This caused her to alter course, and she bore down upon the Japanese, coming nearer and nearer. The idea went round that she purposed torpedoing.
Every gun in the Japanese fleet was thereupon laid upon the Tsi Yuen's conning-tower, red flags hoisted, and the Chinese ships ordered to keep off. This the leading vessel, Tsi Yuen (Captain Fong), was unable to do, and she pressed so closely on the Naniwa that Captain Togo turned and headed towards her.
The Tsi Yuen hoisted a white flag, but still continued to approach. Thereupon the Naniwa opened fire, the other ships following suit. The Japanese version, that the Tsi Yuen fired a torpedo first of all, while under the white flag, generally credited, is, on the evidence of Japanese officers, quite incorrect. No torpedo was fired; they expected one-that is all.”
就在致遠艦和廣乙艦「意圖攻擊日艦」失敗夾尾巴逃掉後不久(日軍沒追擊)，高昇輪和謢航的操江艦就出現在浪速等艦面前了。換了你是東鄉，你會不會認為眼前的清艦和輪上的清兵沒有惡意？
真正該罵的是：為甚麼致遠艦在逃亡途中遇見高昇輪和操江艦的時候，居然只顧著自己逃走而沒有警告/通知友軍，令他們失去可以立即掉頭回航逃過一劫的機會？
|
|
|
|
rockitten
我是老鳥
Australia
8191 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2005 : 15:39:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Meins
我對國際法不熟, 但是如果沒有強迫船員不得離開的話, 那當年的判決或許會不一樣.
(日後的一次大戰中, 德國的Emden執行通商破壞時也遇到國際法的問題: 例如說遇到中立國的船隻載運敵方貨物, 則該艦有權處分貨物, 但必須賠償中立國的運貨費損失; 遇到敵人船隻載運中立國貨物, 則是有權擊沉船隻, 但必須賠償貨主的損失.)
此外, 東鄉之所以能在身體狀況不佳, 卻在戰前海軍高層將校的大換血中繼續留下, 主要的原因就是東鄉對國際法的專長. 即使東鄉當年是刻意設法造成此一狀況的, 站在國際公法的立場也仍然無權譴責之, 因為他的確遵守了國際公法的相關規定, 至少從英方之後的判決來看是如此.
我這邊沒有法律方面的資料, 對國際法認知較多的同好可否解說, 若當時船上的士兵允許外國船員依照自由意志離船, 那依國際法會如何判定?
當初東鄉很明顯就是希望把高昇輪帶到安全的地方(日方控制的島)放下「違禁品」之後放行。現在船上的「暴徒」既然拒絕合作，他們的下場很大程度上視乎他們在放走外國船員離船之後做甚麼。如果是如同史實般用步槍向日艦射擊，那自然是該死。如果是甚麼都不做，那東鄉在救起英國船長之後，自然可以和他商量如何處理高昇輪，包括日艦派人接管高昇輪後把高昇輪帶到日方控制的地方放下「違禁品」。以下是當年長崎的海事法庭對高昇輪事件的判決：
LOSS OF THE KOWSHING
Finding and Order of a Naval Court, held at H.B.M. Consulate, Nagasaki, on August 7, 1894.
The s.s. Kowshing was an iron vessel, schooner rigged, of 1355 tons registered tonnage, official number 8700, built at Barrow-in-Furness, and belonging to the port of London. It appears from evidence given before this court that she sailed from Taku on or about the 23rd day of July, 1894, bound for Gasan, in Korea, with no cargo but 1100 Chinese troops on board, that everything went well until the morning of the 25th July, when about 9 a.m. the Naniwa, a Japanese man-of-war, signaled to her to stop and to anchor, with the island of Sho-pei-oul bearing about N. by E., distant 1 ¼ miles. That after communicating with the Kowshing twice by boat, and ordering the officers to quit the vessel, which they were prevented doing by the Chinese troops, the Naniwa, about 1 p.m., discharged a torpedo at the Kowshing, and this not striking her the Naniwa fired a broadside of five heavy guns at her and continued firing both heavy and machine guns from deck and tops until she sank, about an hour later. That when firing commenced a number of the crew and Chinese troops jumped overboard, amongst them the master, Thomas Ryder Galsworthy, the first mate, Lewis Henry Tamplin, and a quartermaster, Lucas Evangelista (a Manilla man), who are the only members of the crew at present known to be saved. The court, having regard to the circumstances above stated, find as follows:-
1. That the ship was sufficiently seaworthy and found well in all necessary respects.
2. That the conduct of the officers and crew before and up to the time of the sinking of the vessel was satisfactory and free from blame.
3. That the cause of the sinking was due to her having been repeatedly struck by heavy cannon shots from the Naniwa, a Japanese man-of-war.
4. That no efforts on the part of the master or crew would have availed to avert the catastrophe.
5. That the court attaches no blame whatever to the master, Thomas Ryder Galsworthy, or any of the officers or crew.
6. The expenses of the Court are merely approved.
Dated at Nagasaki, the 7th day of August, 1894.
John J. Quin,
H.B.M. Consul, president.
因為打官司時英國駐日本領事等也有去關切，事後也沒要求上訴，所以應該是可以接受的判決。由判決來看，要東鄉「有罪」的話，清方首先要証明輪上的清軍「秩序良好」而且「態度合作」(令”That no efforts on the part of the master or crew would have availed to avert the catastrophe.”這點不成立)，否則東鄉的辯護律師很容易用「東鄉是在無可奈何的情況下……」來開脫。
只不過留學英國的東鄉清楚海事法很正常，清方在輪上那位不信任英國船長又沒留過洋的土炮將軍會不會知道(或明白)這點我很懷疑…
|
|
|
|
Captain Picard
我是老鳥
9746 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2005 : 17:19:10
|
哈哈！清廷活該，遲遲沒有增兵的決心，死到臨頭才雇用別人家商船進行危險的海運增兵，開戰時只好面對那堆龜毛的國際法啦！
所以議題核心根本是「在英國人面前，東鄉對英國民船開火是否合法」，而不是誰是海盜、誰是戰犯。清兵為了完成任務哪管得了國際法？事實上那票土包子根本不太可能知道當時洋人國際社會的遊戲規則。東鄉精通國際法是最有利的，如果能在不違反遊戲規則的情況下完成任務，即便當時最強大的英國人恨得牙癢癢也拿他沒輒，因為他沒犯規！這樣打官司不會輸，日本就不用出律師費，省了一筆XD。不過個人認為有爭議的是東鄉下令射殺落水清兵的事情。
至於中日雙方誰先開砲（我們這邊都說是吉野開第一炮），就另請高明來考證了，總之既然日本決心要打，風吹了，草就會動，事情遲早會發生，而不是拘泥誰先開火的偽善。
>就在致遠艦和廣乙艦「意圖攻擊日艦」失敗夾尾巴逃掉後不久(日軍沒追擊)，高昇輪和謢航的操江艦就出現在浪速等艦面前了。換了你是東鄉，你會不會認為眼前的清艦和輪上的清兵沒有惡意？
真正該罵的是：為甚麼致遠艦在逃亡途中遇見高昇輪和操江艦的時候，居然只顧著自己逃走而沒有警告/通知友軍，令他們失去可以立即掉頭回航逃過一劫的機會？
這裡有筆誤，當時致遠不在場，應為「濟遠」。
|
Edited by - Captain Picard on 05/28/2005 17:32:38 |
|
|
|
Captain Picard
我是老鳥
9746 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2005 : 17:24:24
|
>The Tsi Yuen was never a good steering ship, and her steering-gear, which had been for some time in a state of neglect, broke down just about the time the Japanese ships were sighted.
This caused her to alter course, and she bore down upon the Japanese, coming nearer and nearer. The idea went round that she purposed torpedoing.
媽呀！原來雙方擦槍走火是因為──濟遠機械故障失控！？聽起來真是好笑啊！
>The Tsi Yuen hoisted a white flag, but still continued to approach. Thereupon the Naniwa opened fire, the other ships following suit. The Japanese version, that the Tsi Yuen fired a torpedo first of all, while under the white flag, generally credited, is, on the evidence of Japanese officers, quite incorrect. No torpedo was fired; they expected one-that is all.”
我先前看的資料是吉野先開砲。
|
|
|
|
rockitten
我是老鳥
Australia
8191 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2005 : 18:47:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Picard
所以議題核心根本是「在英國人面前，東鄉對英國民船開火是否合法」，而不是誰是海盜、誰是戰犯。清兵為了完成任務哪管得了國際法？事實上那票土包子根本不太可能知道當時洋人國際社會的遊戲規則。東鄉精通國際法是最有利的，如果能在不違反遊戲規則的情況下完成任務，即便當時最強大的英國人恨得牙癢癢也拿他沒輒，因為他沒犯規！這樣打官司不會輸，日本就不用出律師費，省了一筆XD。不過個人認為有爭議的是東鄉下令射殺落水清兵的事情。
媽呀！原來雙方擦槍走火是因為──濟遠機械故障失控！？聽起來真是好笑啊！
我先前看的資料是吉野先開砲。
因為浪速是旗艦，所以先開炮不見得不正常。至於先開炮的問題，
因為是濟遠「意圖攻擊」在先，而且濟遠後來也有還火，所以的確可以"all chinese units assume hostile"。既然是清軍拒絕離開英國民船在先，所以東鄉開火的行為沒犯法。這和聯合國那些維和部隊向躲在民居的槍手還火類似。
至於東鄉下令射殺落水清兵的事情，高昇輪船長的證供很清楚：
I can positively say I did not see the Japanese fire on the Chinese in the water. The Chinese killed many of their own people.
其實浪速艦長東鄉給高昇輪的旗號更好笑：
At 9.15 a.m., coming close to the Kowshing, I signaled J.W. (to stop immediately) and twice fired blank shot. The next signal was L.P. (to anchor), which was obeyed.
|
|
|
|
rockitten
我是老鳥
Australia
8191 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2005 : 00:06:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by sisuo
和平時期海上根本沒有臨檢的權力，這蒐船隻是中國僱傭的，英國船長有什么理由順從日本要求？當時是和平時期！
我在強調一邊，首先在和平時期日本戰艦跑去攔截中國船隊就是違反國傢法，不宣戰而開火更是違反，之后交火完畢后侵犯中立國船隻更是違法！
當時如果日本船隻不要求英國船隻，那中國軍人當然不會企圖控製船。而日本的這種要求本身就是違反國傢法。在和平時期公海上一國軍艦無權蒐查任何船隻。現代的禁運隻有聯閤國纔閤法，那時聯閤國成立后的事情。
至于英國這一戰根本就是希望日本勝利，當然不會給日本找痲煩。
1.和平時期海軍在公海對形跡可疑的船一樣有登船臨檢的權力，否則未有海巡之前這幾百年來包括貴國在內的各國海軍反海盜反走私的登船臨檢是玩假的？
2.既然他是船長，他就有權決定船的一切行為，包括順不順從日本要求。身為乘客的清軍沒權決定船的行為。
其他的，我貼出的當事人(英國船長/東鄉)當年的証供、第三者(Jane)訪問日清兩方的文章(包括濟遠艦衝向日艦的辯解)以及法院的判決都已經交待得很清楚：東鄉可能下手太重，但英國船長和東鄉基本上沒做錯。所以這個討論其實在這些証供貼出來之後就可以結束了。
但思索先生你注意國際法和海事法之餘，不妨也注意一下這裡的版規。我想提醒一下，老兄的行為其實已經接近觸犯板規第三條：以政治立場發表單方面主觀意見者刪 ；以及第四條：過分無聊,言論過份偏激者刪這兩項。 |
|
|
|
skyflyer
路人甲乙丙
Christmas Island
3168 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2005 : 00:38:08
|
說道違反版規，還是先請我親愛的香港同胞rockitten根據閣下自己的“自卑兼自大的中國人”“阿Q”“目光如豆的野蠻人”的言論對比版規第四條：過分無聊,言論過份偏激者刪這兩項。
再請閣下反省閣下不顧香港的根本法律『中華人民共和國香港特別行政區基本法』明確認定香港是中國不可分割的一部分的客觀事實，髮錶的毫無客觀依據的“香港不是中國領土是殖民地”的高妙言論。請閣下參攷版規第三條：以政治立場發表單方面主觀意見者刪
國的興亡和我傢的興亡並非定是正相關。 |
|
|
|
Captain Sulu
版主
Taiwan
2822 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2005 : 12:54:59
|
關於高昇輪這一篇討論：
1.
任何可能有政治立場的議題也都有理性討論的空間，我希望在這裡的網友都能透過彼此的交流而擴張自身意識型態疆界，版主並不會一味地封殺踩在邊線上的討論，但是否踩了版規，容我客觀地說，不宜由爭執雙方主觀地界定。
2.
安國寺有一個判例：只要主觀上認為自己的國家或國族受到侵犯可以要求版主出面制止。基本上國關版也會沿用，任何人也可以主張。例如結論式的、修辭式的稱「中國人阿Q」這樣的辭是不當的。但當某些政治議題本身就是衝突點時，例如香港朋友能不能稱呼中國為「貴國」，台灣朋友能不能稱自己為「台灣國」的問題，以目前兩岸三地的生態，若為保護另一方的情感，必然也會傷另一方情感，但恕我無法去照顧因香港朋友稱呼中國為「貴國」或者稱台灣網友使用「台灣國」對大陸朋友情感上造成的傷害，根本上這個論壇的本質基礎就是容納這個主觀現實下成立的，不然我們就只是一個單純發揚大陸民族主義的論壇而己。希望大陸網友能體諒。
3.
希望各位對各種論點採開放的態度。論點可以批判，但請不要以想當然爾似是而非的概念下去批判、或者錯用不當的類比方法，以免造成更大的討論歧異。例如「和平時期沒有在公海上臨檢的權利」並非是一個絕對的概念。公海上是不能臨檢，但國際公約中有規定幾個排除事項是可以臨檢的，例如違禁品、毒品等…這些項目今日以國際公約的型式存在為各國接受為慣例，和平時期亦為適用，在清代以雙邊合約的型式存在，如此，重點在清代的國際規範為何？如果當時的「違禁品」定義是由雙邊約定成立，那麼，這樣的臨檢是否真有違背國際法？問題的方向應是去研究當時國際法慣例為何，而不是武斷地說「和平時期沒有在公海上臨檢的權利」，這即使在今日也不是正確的說法。
4.
由於船是屬於Indo-China 公司的英國船，這個公司船東身分是英資還是中資的我不清楚，但船長的僱傭關係是存在於船長與船東之間，船長要向船東負責，而不是租用人，這一段「…僱主的清軍沒有義務服從英國船長的命令——從來沒有聽說僱主要服從僱員的…」並不正確，除非船東當時在船上並直接下令，不然連即便Indo-China是中資公司，也不代表只要是中國清兵就能命令船長如何如何。船長同時負有保護船東財產與執行承運契約的責任，不過以承運契約來說，基本上被海盜劫了船東並無賠償責任，所以英國船長會服從日方的要求也沒什麼好奇怪了。
5.
銀河號的問題不在於美國有沒有臨檢的權利，美國因為該船有毒品的嫌疑而登船臨檢，事後並無發現毒品，「嫌疑」在裁量上是否有過當是爭議的焦點，問題出在美國的態度而不是「不能臨檢」上，因為基本上美國是引用海洋公約的公海臨檢權，這點是連大陸法學家都同意的。
6.
「權利」與「權力」請分清楚，「和平時期海軍在公海別國船沒有有登船臨檢的權利」大家可能還沒意見，「和平時期海軍在公海別國船沒有有登船臨檢的權力」語意上就混亂了，後者呈現一種獨斷論，可能又引發誤解與爭執，大部分別字無關痛癢，但關鍵別字會造成很大差別。還是其實沒有寫錯，「權力」就是原意？
7.
「自卑兼自大的中國人」「阿Q」「目光如豆的野蠻人」，重申請尊重大陸網友，這無關大陸網友是否先攻擊，而是我們希望有大陸的朋友與我們交流時所需的自制。這種文字有沒有攻擊性要看上下文而定，如果在討論社會心理分析的帖子裡與放在一個政治爭執的結論裡的意義是不一樣，但如果是後者，我會認為是對大陸網友的人身攻擊。但這不是這一帖的問題，不納入這一帖處理。
8.
歷史研究應是還原高昇輪事件過程中、當時的時空背景與歷史情境、身處當時人物的意識型態與侷限，而所謂還原「歷史客觀事實」之不可能性，造成歷史事件是各方人馬搶奪詮釋權的戰場，當今人把此事件的歷史層次提升後，議題最後終究會以民族情感的爭執結束，本篇討論決定仍維持鎖帖狀態。
9.
所有新開的高昇輪相關的帖子都會被銷毀。
|
Edited by - Captain Sulu on 06/02/2005 13:14:06 |
|
|
| |
標題 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
