The issue is your twist and your blame everything on
India which netters are aware of.
It has now been proved beyond doubt that CM tried to
blame the content on Desi Education and then did an
ABOUT TURN when pointed out that the Content was
provided by his Bidesi Experts
>>Anyway, I do stand by all my comments
The tragedy is ... you yourself do not know which is
your comment ... the Fed Researchers publish junk or
the desi fellows cannot comprehend those finely
written piece
You can take a break and go buy some Pepcid or Tums if
you are already out of stock .... or do you maintain a
super jumbo stock at home ?
>>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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!
http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
