>It is an
arrogant way of expressing one's views.
*** Maybe so. But there was reason for expressing it that way. It
was to underscore the fallacy embedded in it.
The useful way to rebut it would have been to show how my
argument, that those who are forced to give bribes could not be held
equally guilty as the ones holding the powers and demanding the
bribes, would be inapplicable.
The untenable argument was the one which holds both equally
guilty. Does not matter who proffers it, a Nobel-laureate or an
Assam Net analyst. To quote well known philosophers or Nobel-laureates
or rocket-scientists do not, by and of itself, make an argument valid
or even applicable. The tack of quoting luminaries is not a substitute
for critical analysis.
At 9:38 AM -0400 4/25/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Language: en
This rejoinder refers to Chandan's critique on DNB's article.
I do not intend playing with words for the sake of argument. We must not miss the woods for the trees. I do not know who exactly said this: torke bohu door (argument can drag on endlessly; you can improve my translation of it); I think it refers to the Vaisnab philosophy of Sri Shankaradev. Now our original objective was to find out what DNB was telling us. We're analysing DNB's article. Rajen Barua responded to it brilliantly. So did Ram. Chandan went astray in order to offer his well-known emphasis on the 'dire need for radical reforms'of 'desi-democracy' as he put it. That requires, I believe, another platform.
*****I usually don't give two hoots about WHO said those wise words, but corruption comes out of power.
It is an arrogant way of expressing one's views. It is better to acknowledge sources, if possible, even paraphrase a gospel, as DNB has done . DNB spoke about the mismanagement of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and the Assam State Electricity Board. When Chandan says "corruption comes out of power", I am afraid this is not Chandan's discovery. The exact wording of the aphorism from political science is 'Power Corrupts'. Unfortunately I do not remember its source. And that is not an argument either. It is fact. I am afraid Chandan fails to distinguish between facts and arguments. Olomoti bistoreno? What do you say?
Bhuban
_______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [email protected] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
