The issue was what Umesh learned from Wiki U, wasn't it? Or was it something I concocted, putting words in UMesh's or your mouths ?
Anyway, I do stand by all my comments , which were in response to whatever came from Umesh or yourself. The challenge for you is to prove to the world of assamnetters that I , CM was wrong on one or all counts. And in order for you to be able to do that, you still will have to show that the main issue: Umesh's understanding of what he read was indeed correct and therefore cm's comments were uncalled for, incorrect, malicious, subversive, anti-Indian, anti_ US, anti_Umesh, anti-Krishnendu or whatever other terms of endearment you can conjure up. That would then make me look bad, you ( and Umesh) will feel vindicated and redeem your honor. Otherwise it will be a stiff dose of Mylanta or Pepto Bismol tonight for sure. I won't even make case of how you will appear to your peers.That won't be cool. I hate to see my fellow netters in such pain, even though self inflicted. At 1:19 PM -0700 10/18/07, Krishnendu Chakraborty wrote: >It has NOTHING to do whether Umesh's view of delivery >truck doing about turn is correct . > >It is about YOUR about turn -- > >1) YOU ascribed the Wiki info on some Desi > >2) YOU mentioned that the site Umesh refered to is >"Yet another PSEUDO scientific account" > >3) When pointed out that is the same info as published >by LoC, YOU said it is garbage > >4) When pointed that it is published by Fed Research, >YOU did an about turn --- the info is correct >comprehension is wrong ..... then WHY not spell it >out in first place and WHY ascribe the Wiki content on >some hapless Desi ?? > >Huh ... thumping chest even when the twists and about >turns are staring on yor face. > > >>>If so what kind of support are you receiving from >>>your fan-mail in >>>assamnet? And if the fans are not responding , >>>have you considered >>>conducting a poll on it ? > >I have my own fan following but do not want to give >you a heart burn. >It is better not to go for a poll. When the results go >against you, you will start calling it a farce (just >the way some newspaper published a false report on PCG >polls :-) ) > > > > >>>And from reading the material you put forth, is it >>>your considered >>>opinion that Umesh's reading of it >>>in line of the delivery truck doing an about turn >>>was the correct >>>conclusion ? > >>>If so what kind of support are you receiving from >>>your fan-mail in >>>assamnet? And if the fans are not responding , >>>have you considered >>>conducting a poll on it ? > > > > > > > >t 12:41 PM -0700 10/18/07, Krishnendu Chakraborty >wrote: >>The material, including your various moving >arguments, >>are already in this forum. Netters are very well >>aware how the arguments shifted ... not for the first >>time though >> >> >>Next time, before ascribing something on "Desi School >>sporting the name of some Christian saint" just >check >>your backyard. May be the author of Wiki is one of >>your home grown expert researcher ! >> >> >> >>>>*** Unless you give them the material under >>>>contention how do you >>>>expect them to judge it? >> >>>>Sheeesh! >> >> >> >>At 12:01 PM -0700 10/18/07, Krishnendu Chakraborty >>wrote: >>>Hope some enlightened netter who understand ordinary >>>english can explain me which of your argument is >true >>>-- >>> >>>1) The Fed Research site is PSEUDO scientific >>>OR >>>2) Fed Research publishes unadulterated garbage >>>OR >>>3) Fed research materials are correct but we are >>>unable to comprehend it. >>>OR >>>All three above >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>OR May be >>>The Fed research experts graduated from a Desi >School >>>sporting the name of some Christian saint >>> >>> >>> >>>>>My heart goes out for you. >>> >>>>>But if you don't agree with what I wrote you can >>>>>pull the material >>>>>together and present it to netters. Most of us >>>>>understand ordinary > >>>>English here. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>At 11:27 AM -0700 10/18/07, Krishnendu Chakraborty >>>wrote: >>>>All three are your arguments so how can we, >>>>half-brained and what not folks figure out what you >>>>are trying to say ... it is too difficult to >>>>understand such high level moving arguments. >>>> >>>>I am yet to recover from shock how infalliable >>BiDesi >>>>experts wrote same piece like a Desi who graduated >>>>from a school/college sporting the name of some >>>>Christian saint >>>> >>>> >>>>>>Why don't you tell us which? >>>> >>>>>>Are you not upto it? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>At 10:57 AM -0700 10/18/07, Krishnendu Chakraborty >>>>wrote: >>>>> >But the problem is NOT what the book may >>>contain, >>>>it >>>>>is the >>>>>COMPREHENSION of it. >>>>> >>>>>>I will bet a dollar that the report did not imply >>( >>>>>>to anyone who >>>>>>reads and comprehends ordinary English) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Hmmm .... a different argument then "Yet another >>>>>PSEUDO scientific account" OR "unadulterated >>>>>garbage". >>>>> >>>>>With such rapid shift in arguments, we, the >>>>>half-brained, dimwits are confused what is true -- >>>>> >>>>>1) The Fed Research site is PSEUDO scientific >>>>>OR >>>>>2) Fed Research publishes unadulterated garbage >>>>>OR >>>>>3) Fed research materials are correct but we are >>>>>unable to comprehend it. >>>>>OR >>>>>All three above >>>>> >>>>>> >If the piece of info is garbage (indicates >>>there >>>>>may >>>>>>be more garbage) , it implies that --- >>>>> > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ >Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos. >http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html > > > > >_______________________________________________ >assam mailing list >assam@assamnet.org >http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org _______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
