I'm responding to this mail only because JC has appended my message below his response.
JC's response (appended below) in no way answers any of my questions posed to FN! I'm equally surprised to see JC acting as spokesperson to FN!! Anyway, FN should be a happy person to have JC in his camp!!! Now on FN could at least breathe freely without expecting any unwanted responses coming from JC!!!! U. G. Barad On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 Jose Colaco cola...@gmail.com wrote: Please allow me to express my delight, relief and gratitude that, this morning, among the GN posts, I read NO 'rear-admiralesque' abuse against women, with whom the 'communal' ones may or may not have partisan political differences. Notice also that the Hacktivists and other Sala_Azarists have conveniently occupied themselves with Hututu and Kabbadi; Was there nothing worthwhile to comment about the "Inphormassun" ghotolla? Arre baba, NOT even a "poshter" kompetissun? Jc On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:07 PM, "U. G. Barad" <dr.udaybarad@gmail.comwrote: What is exactly meant by 'bit more'? Why is it called 'bit more' to be subtle / cunning / clever? Is creating quota within quota not an act of leveraging religion based politics (this is only a recent example!)? Which of the diverse trends did congress succeeded in incorporating so far for the betterment of India and Indians? U. G. Barad On Sat, 23 Jun 2012, FN in unique style wrote: And why should anyone think the Congress is above leveraging religion-based politics? Except that it is (a bit more) subtle about it. And it tries to incorporate diverse trends within its diverse mahasagar! FN