goanet-digest Tuesday, June 18 2002 Volume 01 : Number 4096
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this issue:
[Goanet] CPI'S CAUTION ON SIOLIM-CHOPDEM BRIDGE OPENING
[Goanet] re: Matteo Colella
[Goanet] July 2, GOA DAY dinner in New York
[Goanet] re: Matteo Colella
[Goanet] Re: A Skeptical View on the Padre Pio Hysteria
[Goanet] re: Matteo Colella
[Goanet] Seaman falls off boat; drowns
Re: [Goanet] re: Canonization
[Goanet] Re: A Skeptical View on the Padre Pio Hysteria
See end of digest for information on subscribing/unsusbcribing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 00:53:31 +0530
From: "Joel D'Souza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Goanet] CPI'S CAUTION ON SIOLIM-CHOPDEM BRIDGE OPENING
CPI SEES RED IN VIEW OF SIOLIM-CHOPDEM BRIDGE OPENING
In an open letter dated 17th June, 2002, addressed to Chief Minister
Manohar Parrikar, Christopher Fonseca, Secretary of Communist Party of
India (Goa), has cautioned the government to ensure that the opening of the
Siolim-Chopdem Bridge is not carried out in haste before ensuring that the
bottlenecks likely to be created to the smooth flow of the increased
traffic, in the villages on either side of the bridge, are cleared. The
letter also says, "While we join the people in Goa in rejoicing at the fact
that the bridge will be completed and put to use for the benefit of the
traveling public after a long wait and delay, may we point out that this
happy development will throw up new problems".
One of the main problems foreseen by Fonseca, who was a CPI candidate for
the Siolim constituency, is: "The opening of the bridge will cause
permanent loss of livelihood to the people of Siolim and Chopdem, specially
those who have woven their livelihood on the banks of the river and near
the ferry-points. The change is going to be an ordeal for them, causing
negation of livelihood for the people at the Siolim bazaar, to the small
shopkeepers and their workers, gaddas, tea stalls, fish, meat, vegetable
and flower sellers, taximen, tempos, rickshaw and motorcycle pilots, toddy
tappers, liquor vendors and others."
The letter says, "We propose that the government should conduct a 'spot
survey' and publish a 'white paper' with a concrete action plan to ensure
that all those, who are affected, should be duly rehabilitated or
compensated for the permanent loss of livelihood and opportunity.
"The consequence of the opening of the bridge will result into congestion
on the very narrow out reaches of the connecting roads, which are
insufficient to service this increased traffic." The letter also refers to
the totally run down condition of the connecting roads at Cunchelim,
Assagao, Badem, Caisua and Anjuna, which have not seen repairs for a very
long time.
Fonseca points out that the Siolim-Chopdem ferry boats should not be
decommissioned completely, but at least a skeleton service retained to
enable people from nearby areas to cross the river and travel to and fro.
The letter also strikes a note of caution on the environmental front,
stating, "The Chapora/Caisua River is dying a slow death. The once deep and
blue river is growing shallow due to the rapid siltation, a huge 'silt
bank' has been allowed to thrive right in the middle of the river due to
the crass neglect and apathy of the succeeding governments. The
multiple-pier bridge has further accentuated this siltation process." Hence
it requests the government to dredge the river for the benefit of
navigation, growth of fish, shell-fish and aquatic life, for which the
river was once known all over.
"There have been repeated reports that one of the pillars/columns of the
Siolim-Chopdem bridge is defective. In the interest of one and all we
caution the government to maintain an eagle's vigil on the bridge to
regulate its safety and use, and a double-check ought to be conducted on
the 'faulty column'," Fonseca states. In conclusion, he says, "The
government should seriously ponder over the issues raised here above and
take steps to rectify the same on a war-footing."
* * *
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 12:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: "J. Almeida" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Goanet] re: Matteo Colella
Santosh Helekar writes:
"tried to deceive us into believing that no
conventional medical
treatment was given or could be given to this boy."
- ------------------------------
Dear Santosh,
Please be objective. Unlike the Medical Board which
assessed the prognosis on the basis of the full
medical records and other relevant evidence, I write
only the little that I know. Those who feel strongly
enough about these things can seek access to the full
medical reports.
Let's assume that the best known conventional
treatment was given. I have no reason or intent to
believe or suggest otherwise. The question still
remains: what was Matteo Colella's prognosis?
If anyone has reason to differ with the verdict of the
Medical Board regarding the prognosis in this case,
please do not remain silent. I am as yet unable to
find any grounds for differing with their verdict.
Regards,
Joel Almeida
PS Good idea to discard terms such as "hysteria" and
"skeptical", which launched this discussion. If the
medical staff described themselves as being
pessimistic about the prognosis, I am not in a
position to differ.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Pinto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Goanet] July 2, GOA DAY dinner in New York
Dear all,
You are invited to celebrate GOA DAY in New York. Please RSVP if you can make it and
reconfirm if
you have previously said you will attend. We need an accurate headcount. Thanks to
Victor
Rangel-Rebeiro (author) for arranging the dinner and to Eric Pinto for inviting
various people.
All are invited (all ages, Goans, non-Goans). We had initially planned to meet just
for the heck
of it, and this is a great opportunity to celebrate GOA DAY. This is a very informal
gathering,
low-key, and an opportunity to meet for a few hours. I am personally looking forward
to meeting
anyone who can make it even if you can stop by only for a few minutes. Please email me
and let me
know, deadline to sign up is June 25, 2002 as we need to inform the restaurant in
advance.
Maharaja Restaurant from 5.30 to 9.00 p.m. on July 2, 2002, Tuesday.
Address: East 44th Street in Manhattan, very close to Second Avenue, and between
Second and Third
Drinks (no-host) from 5:30-7pm (you can come for drinks only if you can't stay for
dinner)
Buffet dinner from 7-9pm
The buffet will consist of 3 vegetables, 2 meat dishes, a seafood dish, dal, pullao,
nan,
parathas, papads, desserts, and soft drinks. Juices, lassis, liquor, would have to be
paid for
separately. Total cost per head for dinner is $25 and is payable to the restaurant
manager. This
includes taxes and tip. Children under 12 is $15. Children under 3, no charge.
The Maharaja restaurant in located in mid-town Manhattan.
Look forward to seeing you.
Regards,
George Pinto
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 20:46:03 -0000
From: "santoshhelekar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Goanet] re: Matteo Colella
- --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "J. Almeida" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Please be objective. Unlike the Medical Board which
>assessed the prognosis on the basis of the full
>medical records and other relevant evidence, I write
>only the little that I know.
>
>Let's assume that the best known conventional
>treatment was given. I have no reason or intent to
>believe or suggest otherwise. The question still
>remains: what was Matteo Colella's prognosis?
>
>................................................................
>
>I am as yet unable to find any grounds for differing with their >verdict.
>
Dear Joel:
I will make this my last post on this thread. I think I have made my
point of view abundantly clear. I hope you realize that you are not
exactly objective about this matter. You are drawing your conclusions
based on "the little that you know".
As long as people (even those with a scientific background like you)
are willing to throw caution to the wind, and believe in the miracles
of their particular faith based on "the little that they know", those
of us who see no reason to invoke supernatural explanations to account
for natural phenomena will remain SKEPTICAL.
Regards,
Santosh
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 20:47:44 +0000
From: "Joe Vaz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Goanet] Re: A Skeptical View on the Padre Pio Hysteria
"santoshhelekar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The recent spate of posts and worldwide hysteria about Padre Pio's
>canonization has once again drawn attention to supernatural phenomena, such
>as stigmata, bi-location and miraculous cures. To those who might be
>muscled into believing in these things by the sheer magnitude of this
>hysteria, I would like to present below a contrasting rational view
>regarding these phenomena.
Dear Readers:
This so-called “rational view” hereinabove can be ascribed to “personal
opinion” (or viewpoint”), and we know the definition of “opinion” and more
so, --how opinions can differ across the spectrum.
However, I hasten to add that I wouldn’t blame Santosh for his “skeptic”
views on various matters concerning -- God, Religion and miracles -– after
all (I guess) his profession calls for skepticism. Nevertheless, I wonder
if he would do good by viewing the glass as “half full” rather than “half
empty” in the course of his discernments and discourses on vital issues.
In the canonization process there is a role known as (or previously called)
the “Devil’s Advocate” this role freely allows for refutation of a miracle
claim through (scientific) demonstration.
Any scientific theory, by definition, is as good as the conclusive proof it
provides. And any amount of unsubstantiated rhetoric cannot disapprove,
invalidate or repudiate a miracle in its own right, virtue and definition.
The canonization process is subjected to rigorous scrutiny and scientific
study and analysis, and therefore amply allows for refutation of claims.
And when --and only when-- no evidence is produced, to refute the occurrence
of the miracle, or miraculous cure/s as in this case, it is declared as such
(“miracle”) --as inexplicable phenomenon, to the human mind.
A passage from the book “Conversation with God” succinctly states:
“You don’t want to know the Truth, you want to know the Truth as you
understand it. This is the greatest barrier to your enlightenment. You
think you already know the Truth! You think you already understand how it
is. So you agree with everything you see or hear or read that falls into
the paradigm of your understanding, and reject everything which does not.
And this you call learning? This you call being open to the teachings?
Alas, you can never be open to teachings so long as you are closed to
everything, save your own Truth.”
God and miracles have remained unfathomable mysteries to humankind – and
science cannot unravel this mystery. And as mysterious as it may seem – it
is an irrefutable fact that miracles do occur in human life. Truth never
changes its form; it will always remains as the “truth” –- no matter what
the case, condition or circumstance.
Best wishes,
Joe Vaz
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: "J. Almeida" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Goanet] re: Matteo Colella
Santosh Helekar writes:
You are drawing your conclusions
based on "the little that you know".
- ----------------------------------------
Dear Santosh,
That is false. My conclusions rely on the fully
informed expert opinion of the Medical Board.
If anyone knows of specific evidence to refute their
verdict, why remain silent?
Regards,
Joel Almeida
PS I think evidence is more powerful than rhetoric.
Why not try it?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 22:48:57 -0700
From: "rene barreto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Goanet] Seaman falls off boat; drowns
Fred ,
Is Joe not the brother of John D Silva ?
Joe was our school mate - at St.Pauls in Belgaum.
rene
Seaman falls off boat; drowns
>From Our Margao Bureau
MARGAO, June 18: Captain of vessel MV Gosalia Prospects, Joe D'Silva died
when he fell off the boat, this afternoon. The strong winds had also carried
away the vessel, which was later brought back to the Mormugao Port Trust's
(MPT) berth.
The incident occurred this afternoon, when D'Silva was climbing up the boat,
which is a mini-transhipper in nature. Though the reason of his slip into
the water was not known, sources said that captain got a sudden heart
attack.
While sources disclosed that ship was also carried away with the strong
wind, police did not confirm the incident.
"We have got the information that the captain died due to drowning. We have
no knowledge about ship sinking or being carried away," stated
superintendent of police (South), Mr I D Shukla.
It is learnt that the ship which was carried away due to strong winds was
brought back to the berth number 10 of MPT with the help of Coast Guard and
MPT.
The Coast Guard officials, when contacted, declined to furnish any
information.
The deceased was 56-year-old and was hailing from Ratwado, Navelim.
His body was fished out by Coast Guard and later brought to Goa Shipyard in
a helicopter. Later, it was sent to Hospicio Hospital, Margao. Harbour
police have registered a case under Section 174 of CrPc.
------------------------------
Date: 18 Jun 2002 22:10:26 -0000
From: "Rohit Shukla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] re: Canonization
Now, if you guys like to hoist yourself on the pedestal of
rationalism, go ahead. Leave the Catholic Church alone! Your cheap
potshots at the Catholic Church speak more about your intellectual
and spiritual bankruptcy than a faith and tradition that is more
than 2000 years old.
"And the forces of evil shall not overcome it."
Rohit.
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 santoshhelekar wrote :
>--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "J. Almeida" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Both Catholics and Materialists know that miracles are
> >(by definition) highly improbable. Church authorities
> >were themselves highly sceptical about St. Pio during
> >his lifetime. That by itself is neither here nor
> >there. Awaken, Materialists, seize your chance:
> >demolish these claims with specific evidence.
> >Otherwise I fear that most people might not take you
> >too seriously.
> >
>
>Joel, Are you being even-handed in your treatment of the
>"Materialists", as opposed to the Catholics, here? Why would
>people
>not take only the "Materialists" seriously? What have the
>Catholics
>done vis-a-vis these claims to deserve such special favor?
>
>Don't you believe in fairness and equal justice to people on all
>sides
>of a proposition?
>
>
> >
> >You might have suggestions for further tightening
> >the procedures in certifying miracles. I urge you to
> >make your suggestions to the Vatican. I am as anxious
> >as you are that nobody be deceived.
> >
>
>Could you tell the Vatican to submit a detailed report on the
>scientific validation of their miracles to an international
>scientific
>journal to be considered for publication as a peer-reviewed
>research
>article?
>
>It is an inappropriate (some would say unethical) scientific
>practice
>to publicize non-peer-reviewed findings through the popular
>media.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Santosh
>
>
_________________________________________________________
Click below to visit monsterindia.com and there is always a
better job for you at http://monsterindia.rediff.com/jobs
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 00:15:41 -0000
From: "santoshhelekar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Goanet] Re: A Skeptical View on the Padre Pio Hysteria
- --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Joe Vaz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>In the canonization process there is a role known as (or previously
>called) the ?Devil?s Advocate? this role freely allows for refutation
>of a miracle claim through (scientific) demonstration.
>
>.....................................................................
>
>Any scientific theory, by definition, is as good as the conclusive
>proof it provides. And any amount of unsubstantiated rhetoric cannot
>disapprove, invalidate or repudiate a miracle in its own right,
>virtue and definition. The canonization process is subjected to
>rigorous scrutiny and scientific study and analysis, and therefore
>amply allows for refutation of claims. And when --and only when-- no
>evidence is produced, to refute the occurrence of the miracle, or
>miraculous cure/s as in this case, it is declared as such
>(?miracle?) --as inexplicable phenomenon, to the human mind.
>
I have debated with Joe Vaz on this matter in the past. As in his
previous posts on this issue, his argument continues to suffer from a
serious misunderstanding of Science and the scientific method. Here is
what my understanding of the scientific method is. This is the science
I know and practice on a daily basis in my own modest way:
1. Science always tries to seek rational natural explanations for
observed phenomena - explanations that do not violate established
scientific principles based on objective evidence.
2. When confronted with an apparently unusual and extraordinary
observation the default scientific position is to still seek natural
explanations perhaps involving modification of the existing
principles. However, such modifications are viewed with tremendous
skepticism by the rest of the scientific community. To be taken
seriously the proponent of this new explanation has to carry the
entire burden of providing an extraordinary amount and type of
objective scientific evidence to support his claim.
3. Science does not accept or even consider a claim as legitimate just
because it has not or cannot be refuted by others.
4. Science under no circumstances entertains supernatural explanations
of any kind.
5. If a religious, paranormal or supernatural organization decides to
stretch their definition of Science to include supernatural
explanations, they would still have to require that the proponents of
such explanations carry the burden of supporting their claims with an
extraordinary amount and type of objective scientific evidence. Of
course they can stretch the definition of the scientific method to
suit their own convenience. But then their claim that they have
followed "rigorous scrutiny and scientific study and analysis" would
be false and deceptive. Such claims have been made by all kinds of
pseudoscientific disciplines and organizations, such as astrology,
believers in UFOs, believers in telepathy, etc.
6. All genuine scientific reports that are deemed to result from a
"rigorous scrutiny and scientific study and analysis" are
published in a reputed scientific journal after an excruciating
peer-review process conducted by anonymous expert referees. I would
love to know the name of the scientific journal in which the miracle
claims that Joe Vaz is referring to are published. If they have not
been published in such a manner, then I have no choice but to discount
his claim that "the canonization process is subjected to rigorous
scrutiny and scientific study and analysis". Such a statement is empty
rhetoric.
Another clear example of empty rhetoric is the passage quoted by him
below:
>
>A passage from the book "Conversation with God" succinctly states:
>"You don?t want to know the Truth, you want to know the Truth as you
>understand it. This is the greatest barrier to your enlightenment.
>You think you already know the Truth! You think you already
>understand how it is. So you agree with everything you see or hear
>or read that falls into the paradigm of your understanding, and
>reject everything which does not. And this you call learning? This
>you call being open to the teachings? Alas, you can never be open to
>teachings so long as you are closed to everything, save your own >Truth."
>
The above passage is not just empty rhetoric. It is ironic, because it
applies more aptly to religion than to science.
>
>God and miracles have remained unfathomable mysteries to humankind ?
>and science cannot unravel this mystery. And as mysterious as it may
>seem ? it is an irrefutable fact that miracles do occur in human
>life. Truth never changes its form; it will always remains as the
>"truth" ?- no matter what the case, condition or circumstance.
>
Upon reading the above additional rhetoric, the following rhetorical
questions come to mind:
How does Joe Vaz know all this? Could it be that he has a privileged
vantage point that enables him to see the truth? Does he know the
ultimate "truth" by any chance?
Cheers,
Santosh
------------------------------
End of goanet-digest V1 #4096
*****************************
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--W-E-B--S-I-T-E--=-=-=
To Subscribe/Unsubscribe from GoaNet Digest | http://goacom.com/goanet
======================================================================
* Send e=mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT [EMAIL PROTECTED])
* Leave SUBJECT blank <--- Commom Mistake !!
* On first line of the BODY of your message, type:
subscribe goanet-digest YOUR.EMAIL
OR unsubscribe goanet-digest YOUR.EMAIL
DO NOT include the entire digest when replying to goanet !!!!!!
Questions/Problems? Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
