Re: [silk] Manchurian
On Friday 25 Sep 2009 10:27:15 pm Thaths wrote: > chao mian Chao mian (Also called Chou En Lai) was also one of the early players in the game that led via Pakistan to an anti Soviet alliance between the US and China - with Pakistan being paid off with a tested design of a nuclear bomb and enough Uranium to make over a dozen bombs while the mealy mouthed non proliferation lobby looked the other way. shiv
Re: [silk] Manchurian
Tharoor's got a long career as a senior UN bureaucrat, even making deputy secretary general as kofi annan's protege. Then ran against ban ki moon, lost and left That career would be two or three decades worth of effort, and certainly teaches people to be diplomatic and careful in what they say. Celebrity author status + a mistaken idea that all the twitterati are a lot more flippant than your average bureaucrat didn't help He complains of ridiculously high workloads after his africa trip.. on what's probably the biggest time sink online Way to go, I'd say --Original Message-- From: Lahar Appaiah Sender: silklist-bounces+suresh=hserus@lists.hserus.net To: silklist@lists.hserus.net ReplyTo: silklist@lists.hserus.net Subject: Re: [silk] Manchurian Sent: Sep 25, 2009 23:10 Well, to be fair, you smirked when you heard that Tweet was a very lonely man. I found that quite insensitive to Mr. Tweet. I'm not sure if you had even done the same amount of research Mr. Vadakkan had, or had any idea about the pain this Tweet person was going through, but you were being quite high handed there. On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Amit Varma wrote: > > That was agonizingly stupid, all 4 of them. Thank heavens I don't watch > TV. > > > > All 4 of them? :) > -- srs (blackberry)
Re: [silk] Manchurian
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Amit Varma wrote: > [...] > >> > http://www.timesnow.tv/Debate-Whats-the-big-deal-about-Tharoors-tweet/videoshow/4327575.cms > >> > >> That was agonizingly stupid, all 4 of them. Thank heavens I don't watch > TV. > >> > > > > All 4 of them? :) > > True, only 3 of them spoke in the first few minutes that I was able to > watch, the fourth hadn't uttered a word till then, you weren't the > fourth were you? > Heh, well, I did get a few words in much later. Wrote about the show here: http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/tweet-is-a-very-lonely-man/ I don't watch TV either, as it happens. -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com http://www.twitter.com/amitvarma
Re: [silk] Manchurian
Well, to be fair, you smirked when you heard that Tweet was a very lonely man. I found that quite insensitive to Mr. Tweet. I'm not sure if you had even done the same amount of research Mr. Vadakkan had, or had any idea about the pain this Tweet person was going through, but you were being quite high handed there. On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Amit Varma wrote: > > That was agonizingly stupid, all 4 of them. Thank heavens I don't watch > TV. > > > > All 4 of them? :) >
Re: [silk] Manchurian
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Amit Varma wrote: [...] >> http://www.timesnow.tv/Debate-Whats-the-big-deal-about-Tharoors-tweet/videoshow/4327575.cms >> >> That was agonizingly stupid, all 4 of them. Thank heavens I don't watch TV. >> > > All 4 of them? :) True, only 3 of them spoke in the first few minutes that I was able to watch, the fourth hadn't uttered a word till then, you weren't the fourth were you? Cheeni
Re: [silk] Manchurian
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:15 PM, divya manian > wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Thaths wrote: > >> Actually, Suraiya is wrong on at least this front. > > > > Probably comes from being "computer-illiterate" and being "proud of it" > > > http://www.timesnow.tv/Debate-Whats-the-big-deal-about-Tharoors-tweet/videoshow/4327575.cms > > That was agonizingly stupid, all 4 of them. Thank heavens I don't watch TV. > All 4 of them? :) -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com http://www.twitter.com/amitvarma
Re: [silk] Manchurian
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:15 PM, divya manian wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Thaths wrote: >> Actually, Suraiya is wrong on at least this front. > > Probably comes from being "computer-illiterate" and being "proud of it" > http://www.timesnow.tv/Debate-Whats-the-big-deal-about-Tharoors-tweet/videoshow/4327575.cms That was agonizingly stupid, all 4 of them. Thank heavens I don't watch TV. Cheeni
Re: [silk] Manchurian
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Thaths wrote: > Actually, Suraiya is wrong on at least this front. Probably comes from being "computer-illiterate" and being "proud of it" http://www.timesnow.tv/Debate-Whats-the-big-deal-about-Tharoors-tweet/videoshow/4327575.cms - divya
Re: [silk] Manchurian
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Deepak Misra wrote: > Then you would love > http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/jugglebandhi/entry/chinese-chakkars "To begin with, 'chow mein' (not to mention 'fried rice') does not exist anywhere in China, either in their kitchens or in their lexicons. To append the adjective 'Chinese' (or 'Chinees') to this unholy mess is insulting enough." Actually, Suraiya is wrong on at least this front. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chow_mein "Chow mein (chao mian in Mandarin-speaking communities) is a generic Chinese term for a dish of stir-fried noodles, of which there are many varieties." Thaths -- Homer: Look at these low, low prices on famous brand-name electronics! Bart: Don't be a sap, Dad. These are just crappy knockoffs. Homer: Pfft. I know a genuine Panaphonics when I see it. And look, there's a Magnetbox and Sorny.
