Hi Cornel, Thanks for your question. You are indeed very kind in giving us TWO MONTHS TO MAKE SENSE about the Goa Catholic Church issue as raised by George. The time-line for that thread was two days. In my opinion, even that was too much. :=)) There were no facts, only philosophy, conjectures and opinions. I was disappointed I did not hear from you on the issue of 'Identity Crises' among some members of the Goan Diaspora in the UK.
I do not know about you and others. To me Goanet dialogue is NOT TO CONVERT any one. It is to share considered views and in the process ADVANCE ONE'S OWN understanding. So really the dialogue should be self-instructive RATHER THAN a self-endurance exercise. There is no place to continue to dialogue by arguing a non-issue OR fixing a view on the other just to respond to it (frequently used trick on Goanet). In such cases, one can argue with oneself without dragging others into a futile debate. This is not bad as a balanced perspective. I have not been closely following the dialogue on Iraq, Saddam Hussein or Bush's election. Then those posts appeared under a strange heading like 'Amchem Goem'. And then individuals started complaining about each other under different threads. Those posts I found even more amusing. I hope in those exchanges the authors of those posts knew what the issues were, beyond of course who could insult the other (at least those were the grievances as I perceived them). The best way to end a dialogue, which I am sure you know, is the age-old English man's approach - the silent treatment. Then being Goan we need to PRAY AND HOPE 'the thread will die under its own weight'. Some don't dignify a comment / post with a response. That is the approach the Goa church gave George's inquiries and I applauded the Church for it. I hope this answers your questions about "closure of a Goanet discussion". Frankly I do not know what's the issue? Is it closure of discussions OR Goanet should expand the range of topics it encourages? Perhaps we are arguing an issue which we do not disagree.:=)) Whatever your choice is: Make a motion followed by a second. Then open it for discussion / debate and then a vote. Or would you and others like to see the changes brought-in through the back door with 'the squeakiest wheel getting the most grease'? :=) I have no strong feelings, but like you, I'd like consistency. :=)) Regards Cornel: Gilbert Lawrence, I note your obvious delight re the closure of a recent Goanet discussion. May I now ask how long, time-wise, would seem reasonable to you for the debate between you, George Pinto and others before an imposed closure of discussion regarding specific Church/priestly affairs? Would about two months be excessive as in the instance of the closed case? and should the Ribander case which has been going on endlessly for several months, and bored some people to death, be closed forthwith? I only ask because I am sure you have a concern for consistency. Also, to allow one like me to try to avoid a 24 hour guillotine when one may be too busy on non Goanet issues to be able to respond substantially and immediately to the kind of Church issue you have raised with George and the caste issue as an example. Regards, Cornel